Professor Karl, The PAS and the Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz (IV): Unreported Finds by “Members of the Public”, i.e., Artefact Hunters

.
In Professor Raimund Karl’s polemic text ("On the Highway to Hell: Thoughts on the Unintended Consequences for Portable Antiquities of § 11(1) Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz" he says (p. 114), gratuitously misquoting Georg Dehio out of context in the process, that it is important that finds made by artefact hunters are reported, for:

"if the BDA is to know what archaeological heritage needs to be protected, it first needs to know where it exists. And for that, it needs the information that only the public can provide".

Yet how can it "protect" that which it cannot protect from looting, because to get finds reported (I understand Karl is arguing) we need to lift the restrictions on looting?

Is this really "information that only the public can provide"? Absolutely not, an alternative solution, applied successfully elsewhere, is for the Historic Environment Record not to be based on ad hoc and random measures like the public reporting this and that, but a systematic survey of the country by trained personnel as we have in Poland. Then the archaeological community does not need to be reliant on pandering to the plunderers and can concentrate on keeping them off archaeological sites. The Bangor Professor completely ignores this manner of resolving the issue he raises. Why?

There is then some artefact-fetishist stuff (see the posts below) page 115 before the author attempts to show "that this is not just more grey theory" ("Finds reporting and metal detectorists in Austria" pp 115-124).

The author has conducted several partially related studies into finds reporting and metal detectorist practices in Austria [...], is currently carrying out a questionnaire survey among metal detectorists in Austria.

While stressing that this is still in progress, Karl suggests that "sufficient data have been collected to discuss the preliminary results of the surveys". In fact Dr Karl has been gathering data to an extent that should shame the thirteen million pound PAS who has not been able to gather the same kind of data from their liaison with and "partnership" of the metal detecting artefact hunters for coming up to a decade and a half (I want to highlight some of these data in a post below this as it is useful comparative material).

Dr Karl's awareness that "there might be a problem only came through a very rough comparison of reporting numbers of finds by members of the public" in England and Wales, Scotland and the figures from Austria. Dr Karl's figure1 "Comparison of numbers of compulsory finds reports in England and Wales, Scotland and Austria" shows the number of English and even Welsh Treasure cases skyrocketing, while Scotland and Austria both show a tendency to drop in 2001-2 (in Great Britain the foot and mouth years). In both Scotland (pop. c. 5,222,100) and Austria (pop. c. 8,414,638) the numbers of both reported accidental, artefact-hunted finds and official excavations hover around the 300-500 per annum mark, while England and Wales (pop. c. 54,452,000) the number of Treasure finds alone shoots up to 800 per annum after 2003, reaching a peak in 2007-8.

Dr Karl's Figure 2 presents a "comparison of total number of finds reports (including compulsorily and voluntarily reportable finds) in Austria and England and Wales" (note this: "statistically extrapolated from PAS annual reports values for 2005 and 2007 highlighted as darker symbols are figures actually reported in PAS annual reports"). Mercifully, these seem to be finds records, rather than the more commonly spun "number of finds reported" figures. As I said earlier, the "annual numbers of reported Treasure in England and Wales" which "hovered around 20 per year, and have since multiplied by a factor of around 40" is a spurious figure as it reflects a change in the law and the manner it was applied.

Karl claims that his statistics show that the "willingness of the public to report archaeological finds has dramatically increased in England and Wales since the inception of the PAS", while "in Austria and Scotland, on the other hand, where all finds must be reported, the willingness of the public to report finds seems to have stagnated or even considerably declined". What he does not mention is the fundamental difference between the three systems. In England and Wales there are FIFTY members of staff (equivalent to about a tenth of the entire archaeological workforce of Austria) going out and actively seeking items from artefact hunters to boost the size of the database. A fundamental element of this are their frequent visits to several hundred metal detecting clubs (which are not present in any numbers in either Austria or Scotland) and dozens of high-density finds producing commercial artefact hunting rallies every year (likewise not present in either Scotland or Austria). If the true figures were ever known, it would be seen that these two types of activity account for a substantial number of the records added to the PAS records annually. This is quite a different thing from members of the artefact hunting community coming forward with their finds. [I would urge the PAS to come clean over these figures for the benefit of people like Dr Karl interested in these issues (they will not of course)].

Dr Karl suggests that "it is impossible to give accurate or even reasonably extrapolated figures for voluntary finds reporting in England and Wales before the introduction of the PAS, since this information was not consistently recorded". It is unclear whether he has looked at the report of Denison and Dobinson (1995, Metal detecting and archaeology in England) which (Appendix I, Tables IX-XI and Figs 7-18) considered just this point. There are figures for museums which answered a questionnaire. When extrapolated to museums countrywide (Barford and Swift forthcoming Chapter 12), the results are quite surprising when compared with the pro-PAS spin. It turns out that reporting of finds by artefact hunters may not have been all that far below current levels, which are simply (because many PAS staff are based in the same museums) continuing a well-established pattern.

Incidentally there seems to be a problem getting Austrian archaeologists reporting finds too, with 435 of them, only 195 professional archaeologists reported finds in 2008. "In 1987 [before the restricting legislation], 481 finds reports were included in the FÖ, of which 371 came from amateur archaeologists [...] In total, 131 amateur archaeologists reported finds, of which 48 reported on their own and 83 reported together with professional archaeologists", (p. 118)

Action on UK Heritage Crime success stories

.
Heritage action detail a number of "success stories" in Britain's recent clampdown on heritage crime, including a number involving illegal removal of "portable antiquities" from protected sites - you know that activity that a recent report was saying was hardly occurring nowadays. It seems you only have to be a little more vigilant to find that it is.

We saw this in the case of the Twinstead Hoard where a lot of people tried to walk off with material that evidently should have been reported and handed over. That this is by no means an isolated instance is indicated by this post by one "Relichunting" [Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:30 pm] on the Rally UK forum:

To[o] much of this going on, a hoard is found then its a free for all, it never gets declared because so many people have had shares from it, never to be seen again. [...] That's rally's for you I am afraid to say,and to leave it like a bomb site is out of order,i think the word were looking for is greeed.

This is from an eye-witness, a participant in rallies. To make the point, the writer then recounts the story of "a Newbury rally" he had attended many years ago, during which a "civil war hoard" was found, he said that a free-for-all ensued "for a good hour before the organisers closed the area off, I personally seen over 50 odd hammered's found by different people, of course when the hoard was declared these people could not be found".He concludes:

If your ever lucky enough to find a hoard at a rally, you will be lucky to get it out of the ground before all the greedy vultures appear to try and plunder what ever they can.

Note the suggestion lower down in the thread that the two detector users who HAD obeyed the law and handed two coins in "should be given a free yearly pass to any rally they wish to attend in the uk, well done you two", obviously obeying the law is regarded here as an exception, worthy of reward, than the norm.

Vignette: Mechanical excavator used on the Twinstead rally site to get every last (?) coin out of the ground.

So, How Much Raised for "Heroes"?

.
Some while ago I was discussing here the Bishop's Burton Commercial Artefact Hunting Rally (billed as a "charity" event) where a local MP himself admits he had "had words with" a conservation body on behalf of his pro-military metal detecting friends and made sure the artefact grabfest would go ahead. I am reminded of it because I see from my tracking software tonight that somebody from the House of Commons has been searching this blog for comments on this rally, perhaps Mr Stuart himself, but I REALLY hope its a researcher for a political enemy of his.

According to an article in the village newsletter, apparently written by the landowner, the artefact hunters are described as spreading out across the historical landscape "like ants":

"The attendance was overwhelming [...] in total we had 462 detectors attend the
rally over the three days [...] and with good coverage from BBC Look North, Radio Humberside, ITV and various newspapers we had enthusiasts arriving all weekend".

So, what was taken by these so-called "unsung heroes of the British heritage" (metal detectorists)? How many finds were reported, and how many finds were taken and not reported, and how many archaeological artefacts were dug up but discarded? There are no finds at all listed on the Portable Antiquities Database page here as from this rally. What we are told however is:

Roman artifacts (sic) were unearthed [on the first day] including brooch pins and coins spanning the reign of several Roman emperors. The finding of a Bronze Age coin dating 250 B.C.containing a rare combination of precious metals, ensured the rally got off to a great start. There was a good combination of nice, and unusual, „finds „ flowing back to camp for identification by the British Museum. Of particular excitement for all the archaeologists were a series of Bronze Age artifacts (sic) including a large piece of spearhead dated 1000 B.C., a piece of axe head dated 1800 B.C. and a collection of casting ingots used in production processes that denote the area was of importance and would have been the location for a sizeable well populated settlement [...] All artifacts (sic) were photographed and recorded by the British Museum and will be available to see over the coming months at www.finds.org, go to database, rallies, Burton rally".

Well, the artefacts will not, they are now scattered in a multitude of private personal collections all over the country or on eBay. It is not very nice to see that the landowner was not being kept informed just what was being removed from his property, a "Bronze Age coin" is clearly not what was found.

Apart from how much was made by selling the finds (and photos of the finds), how much money was raised and how much of it went to the landowner, how much the organizers and how much to the "heroes"? Well, the newsletter tells us that at the expense of a hole in the archaeological record, "After all reckoning the final sum stands at a staggering £21,372.00" [raised for charity], that's 46 quid from each detectorist attending.

Source: Guy Ellerington, [in:] 'Bishop Burton News', November 2011

Vignette: What "heroes" do in your name, UK metal detectorists trash the archaeological record in theirs.

British Archaeology and the Metal Detecting Holiday Video

.
NEWLY EDITED VERSION: The online version of the text about "metal detecting" from the November-December issue of British Archaeology has now been placed online. Right in the middle of the online page is something which I admit initially had me confused. On first sight it looked like one of those Internet adverts that a web-provider inserts on your page and that is what I assumed it was. The problem is that it is to a "Chicago Ron" video, and I was a bit puzzled to see what appeared to be a promotion by the CBA of Chicago Ron on its website. Fortunately, things were not as they appeared.

The situation was clarified only later on when I saw the original paper copy of the article with all the pictures, most of which were not included on the online version. It then became clear that there had been a most interesting recent transformation in the visual depiction of the "metal detectorist" on the pages of the magazine. One which is quite out of keeping with previous approaches in most of the archaeological milieu. Gone, for now at least, is the "heritage heroes" image. Good, it was the height of stupidity anyway.

Here's the original video to which the vignette refers. Dr Heyworth made no mention of "detecting" holidays it is true (but a shame). Of course, these being "metal detecting holidays", the individuals depicted include non-British metal detectorists - but digging up the archaeological record of Britain nevertheless. Embedded video below [dermatitis alert]:

Where is this coin now? What records do we have from this site?

Vignette from the British Archaeology webpage.

Metal Detecting Under the Microscope: "Jus' Ignore 'im and the Problem Will Go Away"

.
A while ago British "metal detectorists" were kicking up a fuss on their forums that I'd made reference to a some pretty egregious examples of bad practice that some among their number had gaily posted up on You Tube. As is the way of these things, the moment it was realised that outsiders were looking at this material and making judgements other than "wot 'erritidge 'eroes these blokes are" (which was the intent presumably of the candid filming and broadcasting), the videos were taken down. But my posts were not. I think the fact that the link goes to a "this video has been deleted" message is equally telling. It tells of the fact that "metal detectorists" (artefact hunters) are NOT willing to discuss what they do with the rest of us. They obviously regard the archaeological heritage as theirs and theirs alone, and are not going to listen to what others think should be done with it. Hiding the evidence of what they actually do and say is a very visible symptom of precisely that attitude. To maintain the portable antiquity SCAM perpetrated on the rest of society for as long as possible.

These people apparently have very short attention spans so it is that again the topic of the old post here about the "Blaydon Boyz" video is dragged up to incite rage and indignation in the artefact hunting community. The way this rally was reported is also something they'd rather I'd not brought up on a blog about archaeological conservation.

Typical also is the reaction "just ignore Barford's blogs". That's right guys, head in the sand and pretend you don't see it. These are not real issues are they? I mean not like real issues that really responsible "detectorists" (instead of pretend-responsible "detectorists") would be looking at and trying to do something about. After all, the only things at stake are the preservation of the archaeological record, and the degree to which your hobby can be represented as a legitimate use of the archaeological record. You just carry on ignoring and let people outside the hobby form their own judgement about that.

UPDATE 14.10.11
Quelle surprise, while the thread was visible to all and sundry yesterday, access seems to be blocked today for some readers in some parts of the world at least. Are you one of them? Follow the link and see if you can see "responsible detectorists" discussing conservation and standards.

Vignette: the typical pose of could-not-care-less-"metal-detecting".

Another Way UK Landowners Can be Cheated Out of More Money by Artefact Hunters

.

A while back a British metal detectorist was demanding from a blogger a copyright fee for some pictures that he or she had used. The sum requested was surprisingly high for some scrappy artefact shots with poor lighting and no scale. He was demanding £500 each for them, and justifying this by claiming that this was the price he had routinely been getting from magazines for this type of photo.

This raises the question of whether landowners are aware of this when they sign finds agreements with metal detectorists. Most of these documents do not go into much detail about the financial responsibilities of the artefact hunter after he takes the collectables home. Heritage Action has pointed out that these agreements seldom contain clauses concerning division of the profit should a collector subsequently sell an item received as a gift from the landowner (whose property it is). This is significant when a single Roman brooch or buckle is valued in the "what's it worth?" page of metal detecting magazines at several tens of pounds, let a detectorist sell six or eight of them and he can pocket several hundred pounds a sale. Surely it is clear that the landowner should be aware of the profit the detectorist is making on items he took away for next to nothing and their own rights in the matter.

Now an additional factor is added to the equation. If a detectorist who does not sell the finds taken makes photos of them and then charges magazines and others £500 for the use of each one of them, even for non-commercial purposes, then obviously these proceeds should be being split with the landowner too. By such means a landowner somewhere should be getting £250 for each photo of an artefact which appears in a metal detecting magazine or newspaper article, and probably also for each shot of a metal detectorist on his land. Do they? If landowners make so much money from the photographic rights sold by finders, why does this source of income not figure on a single 'model landowners' agreement' published online? Are metal detectorists maintaining a silence about the profits they make in this area in the hope that landowners never find out?

British metal detectorists loudly protest that they are "not in it for the money", but it is quite clear that some of them waste no opportunity to find ways of making money from their hobby, what however is disreputable is when it seems this takes place with the wool being drawn over the eyes of landowners. The more detectorists who try to take advantage of a landowner's ignorance of the true market value of the finds they release and their goodwill, the more suspicious landowners will become towards the motives of the milieu as a whole. Probably with good reason in certain cases.

Commercial Artefact Hunting rallies in the UK attended (legitimised) by the PAS 2000-2011

.
There is a useful handlist of the commercial artefact hunting rallies in the UK attended by the PAS between 2000 and today from the PAS website. The hyperlinks should give details of which FLO was there and what was reported. I am not clear whether this list means that before 2008 the PAS was not in attendance at any of the many dozens of commercial rallies that were taking place, or whether the details are now difficult to extract from the records. I note for example that the rally in Suffolk in 2008 from which emerged a fuss about me including a photo of the FLO in action seems not to be on this list. The map of commercial artefact hunting rallies in which the Portable Antiquities Scheme has been involved may not therefore be fully up to date. The geographical pattern it reveals is quite interesting.

Each of these places represents an area where the archaeological record over a substantial area has been depleted and in places destroyed by the selective removal of material. To what degree is this mitigated by the lists of a few dozen finds for the most part from unrecorded places within the original pattern contained in the PAS database? What was not recorded at these commercial rallies? How much money was made (including by participants flogging off the finds afterwards) from these events, and how much did providing PAS legitimation of them cost the public? It seems to me that commercial rallies are an especially weak link in the pro-artefact hunting arguments.

1998

1999

2000

Linkenholt 1st September 2000 1st September 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Rallies that the Portable Antiquities Scheme has attended

Linkenholt 1st September 2000 1st September 2000

2005

Myddle Rally 2005, Shropshire 3rd September 2005 4th September 2005

Rotary Charity Rally at Brill, Bucks 2005 10th April 2005

2006

Myddle Rally 2006, Shropshire 16th September 2006 17th September 2006

Rotary Charity Rally at Brill, Bucks 2006 9th April 2006

2007

Weekend Wanderers at Billingsfield II 4th November 2007

Weekend Wanderers at Billingsfield I 23rd September 2007

Rotary Charity Rally at Brill, Bucks 2007 15th April 2007

2008

Baddiley, Cheshire - 26/10/2008 26th October 2008

Fosse Way charity rally 12th October 2008

South Shropshire Rally 12th October 2008

Weekend Wanderers - Ropley (28-09-2008) 28th September 2008

Thrapston & Raunds Charity Rally 28th September 2008

Cliffe Metal Detecting Club Rally 14th September 2008

Trowbridge club rally 8th September 2008

Stixwould rally 5th September 2008 - 7th September 2008

Firle Rally 5 23rd August 2008 - 25th August 2008

Water Newton II 23rd August 2008 - 25th August 2008

Water Newton I 17th August 2008 - 19th August 2008

Weekend Wanderers - Ropley 27th July 2008

Rotary Charity Rally at Brill, Bucks 2008 27th April 2008 27th April 2008

Combermere Abbey 2008 24th February 2008

2009

Weekend Wanderers - Broughton (20/12/09) 20th December 2009

Somerton 2009 8th November 2009

Weekend Wanderers - Otterbourne (18/10/09) 18th October 2009

Rotary charity rally/Wessex MDC - Hannington (04/10/09) 4th October

Combermere Abbey 2009 27th September 2009

Tickhill 2009 25th September 2009 - 27th September 2009

Water Newton Rally III 25th September 2009 - 27th September 2009

Glemsford Rally 2009 25th September 2009 - 27th September 2009

West Hanney 2009 19th September 2009 - 20th September 2009

Coinshooters Charity Rally at Padbury 12th September 2009 - 13th September 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover Dean 5th September 2009

Linwood, Market Rasen, Lincolnshire 4th September 2009 - 6th September 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover Dean 30th August 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover 27th August 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Hardwick 23rd August 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover 20th August 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Mentmore 25th July 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover Dean 28th June 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover Dean 28th June 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Mentmore 9th May 2009

CS at Wharley End, Beds, 2nd - 4th May 2009 2nd May 2009 - 4th May 2009

Rotary Charity Rally at Brill, Bucks 2009 26th April 2009

Malton 2009 10th April 2009 - 13th April 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover Dean 22nd February 2009

Weekend Wanderers - Twyford 1st February 2009

Weekend Wanderers at St Leanards, Bucks 17th January 2009

2010

Weekend Wanderers - Stone 27th November 2010

Marsh Farm, Sudbourne, Suffolk, November 2010 21st November 2010

Beckingham Hall (Tolleshunt Major) Essex Oct 2010 31st October 2010

Weekend Wanderers - Cholsey 2nd October 2010

Green Farm, Bacton, Sept 2010 26th September 2010

Isleham, Cambridgeshire, 2010 26th September 2010

Glemsford Rally, Suffolk, Sept 2010 24th September 2010 - 26th September 2010

Langham, Essex (Colchester MDC) Rally 19th September 2010

Urchfont 2010 17th September 2010 -19th September 2010

Grange de Lings, Lincolnshire 17th September 2010 - 19th September 2010

Andover Anton Rotary Club Charity Metal Detecting Rally 12th September 2010

Western Region (Dave's) rally, Broad Hinton, Wiltshire 12th September 2010

Wyverstone Rally, Suffolk 2010 12th September 2010

Fosse Way RABI rally 2010 12th September 2010

West Hanney 2010 10th September 2010 - 12th September 2010

Water Newton IV 10th September 2010 - 12th September 2010

Great Shefford 10 - Rotary club & Leisure Promo 5th September 2010

Detecting Wales Rally - Ludlow 2 5th September 2010

Bridlington Quay Metal Detecting Club Luttons Rally 29th August 2010

Weekend Wanderers at Ellesborough 29th August 2010

Weekend Wanderers - Ropley 26th August 2010

Weekend Wanderers - Ropley 28th August 2010

Hacheston 22/8/10 22nd August 2010

Detecting Wales Rally (19) - Ludlow Area 15th August 2010

Dewsbury District MDC Dog Tag Rally 2010 15th August 2010

Weekend Wanderers - Wendover 12th August 2010

Rally UK Matching Green 8th August 2010

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover [Hale Lane] 5th August 2010

WW Fritwell Aug 2010 1st August 2010

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover Dean 22nd July 2010

2011

Rotary Charity Rally at Brill, Bucks 2011 17th April 2011

Brampton and Longtown Rotary Club MD Rally 2011 3rd April 2011

The Rodings, Essex 27th March 2011

Rotary/LP rally - East Stratton, Hants (27/03/11) 27th March 2011

Weekend Wanderers - Crawley (12/02/11) 12th February 2011

Combermere Abbey 2011 6th February 2011

Burley Gate - Herefordshire - Detecting Wales 30th January 2011 30th January 2011

Weekend Wanderers - Twyford (30/01/11) 30th January 2011 30th January 2011

Weekend Wanderers - Broughton (02/01/11) 2nd January 2011 2nd January 2011

Although as will be seen, one of the Raunds events is listed, if you click on the link you will see that not a single item from this 2008 rally was ever shown to any FLO. That's Central Searchers for you, all "take" and no "give". So what if it was for "charity" when the people involved are merely there to pocket history for the pounds and pennies they spent?

Water Newton Rally IV: Finds Rate

.

When the Water Newton (Chesterton) was being held under the supervision (sic) of a team of archaeologists the project leader one David Connolly reckoned he'd got the tekkies handing in most of the finds, and on that basis claimed that metal detecting does less damage to the archaeological record than its critics assert. The rally has since gone on without him, and the fourth season has just finished and a detectorist (one Raymo from Middlesborough 232 km from Water Newton) has gone on one of their forums today jubilating about the 'haul' :

hi all,,,got back on sunday night after 10 day's detecting,,,(sort of ,,to much drink)started of at the chesterton rally on the thursday,it was a very good rally for find's, every one i spoke to had 5 to 10 roman bronze,...i had a couple of hammy's, a silver celtic unit,a roman brooch and some bronze roman,...then stoped at a camp site where the owner allowed us to detect for 3 day's,,,i got 3 hammy's,another roman brooch and a potin.,HO,,ALSO FOUND FOOOOUUUR GOOOOLD RING'S,,,(((but that's another storey which i'll post later))..

Connolly (2006 p. 9) had 240 finds from 116 reporting finders (roughly two finds each, but much lower if you take into account the number of detectorists participating) which he considered was "the majority of those who had found something recordable". So there is more or less Roman finds in the topsoil after three rallies and an unknown amount of 'nighthawking'? I have always suspected Connolly's assessment of his success rate was over-optimistic, if what "Raymo" says is true, it looks like there are grounds for stating this with more certainty.

Water Newton Rally Aftermath

.
When the Water Newton (Chesterton) was being held under the supervision (sic) of a team of archaeologists the project leader one David Connolly reckoned he'd got the tekkies handing in most of the finds, and on that basis claimed that metal detecting does less damage to the archaeological record than its critics assert. The rally has since gone on without him, and the fourth season has just finished and a detectorist (one Raymo from Middlesborough 232 km from Water Newton) has gone on one of their forums today jubilating about the 'haul' :

hi all,,,got back on sunday night after 10 day's detecting,,,(sort of ,,to much drink)started of at the chesterton rally on the thursday,it was a very good rally for find's, every one i spoke to had 5 to 10 roman bronze,...i had a couple of hammy's, a silver celtic unit,a roman brooch and some bronze roman,...then stoped at a camp site where the owner allowed us to detect for 3 day's,,,i got 3 hammy's,another roman brooch and a potin.,HO,,ALSO FOUND FOOOOUUUR GOOOOLD RING'S,,,(((but that's another storey which i'll post later))..

Connolly (2006 p. 9) had 240 finds from 116 finders (roughly two finds each) which he considered was "the majority of those who had found something recordable" (but there were many people there participating, and it is impossible to know how many found things when the archaeologists' backs were turned). So there is more or less Roman finds in the topsoil after three rallies and an unknown amount of 'nighthawking'? I have always suspected Connolly's assessment of his success rate was overoptimistic, if what "Raymo" says is true, it looks like there are grounds for stating this with more certainty.

"Crassfest", it's Official

.

Gill Evans of Central Searchers the organizer of the commercial metal detecting rally which was criticised by Heritage Action the other day now complains on a metal detecting forum:

That photo was one of our detectorists who was detecting at the Crassfest which hertitage action took and put on their site without anyones permission.

Now from her previous showings we may conclude Mrs Evans' dictionary skills are not of the highest calibre, but one would have thought even somebody with minimum education would be wary of uncritically repeating words they do not understand... So the commercial artefact hunting detecting rally held at the bank Holiday weekend on an ancient site is officially branded a "crassfest" by the organizers themselves. Not only was the searching of collectable bits and bobs from medieval ridge and furrow carried out by a band of could-not-care-less yobbos in blue anoraks and types like "Big (we know where yer live) Mick". We now know it was led by uncomprehending individuals like Mrs Evans, unable to discern what Heritage action were commenting on and unable to determine the meaning of the words she parrots. That still does not compensate for any archaeological damage done though, does it?

Commercial metal detecting rallies fly against the oft-repeated (only in the UK) mantras about what an "archaeologically beneficial" hobby artefact hunting is. They prove that much of what is said about artefact hunting in the UK by its supporters is just a load of tosh, which is why those supporters try their damndest not to talk about the subject in any detail, and try (as we have seen most clearly in the case of Central Searchers), to hide away any evidence that may be visible to the outside world that not all is as it seems. So what the world sees is a group of people hiding what they do from public view, and unable to come up with any articulate arguments why commercial artefact hunting, carried out in the way it currently is, is "a jolly good thing" for Britain's archaeological heritage. They rely on having "Big Mick", the PAS to legitimise them, and secrecy to shield them from such questions.

.

Sartorial Elegance in the Field...

.

This is how the British gentleman "takes the air in the country" these days. The very picture of sartorial elegance: townie in baggy track suit bottom tailored to go over the wellies, rustling polyester knee-length hooded anorak carefully colour coordinated to blend in with the background, fluffy yellow mittens, squeaking box on a stick and his own pooper scooper.

I wonder how much of the archaeological record of this piece of grassland he took home?

Are those yellow spots wild flowers he seems to be trampling? Were they recorded too?

Photo: Courtesy Heritage Action. Twywell/Slipton, Northants Commercial Artefact Hunting Rally.

The Ethical Genie is out of the bottle, who is going to try and put it back?

Heritage Journal (Metal detecting: a quiet earthquake) is gratified that at last the Institute for Archaeologists has just codified what they and others have been saying for years – archaeologists cannot get involved with treasure hunting or commercial metal detecting rallies. (With a nod in this direction: What makes it an earthquake is that this time it’s not us or Paul Barford that has said it – it’s the archaeological establishment!) There is in what the IFA stipulate what Heritage Action describes as an "elastoplast clause".

Of course, this embarrassment always arises when the searchlight of ethics is directed onto the reality of British conservation practice – which is why “ethics” isn’t much on the menu chez PAS and elsewhere. Pragmatic compromises just can’t be shoehorned into being right or moral or ethical, as IfA has just highlighted.

Read it please. Heritage Action say from the grass roots the things you will rarely find the majority of British archaeologists are prepared to say out loud.

Heritage action: Five years on, Where's the change?

.
In a thought-provoking and colourfully illustrated post on the Heritage Action blog, the question is raised how far liaison has got us since the diasterous 2005 "Near Avebury" commercial metal detecting rally ("a crass and vulgar grabfest dedicated to “self” and a denial of the existence of “society”...").

HA asks what has changed in Britain since that much-criticised event.

"After all, everyone was assured at the time that things would change. Both detectorists and PAS explained over and over that all that was needed was patience. Everyone needed to stop complaining about the damage, jump on the train to Liaisonville (as PAS put it) and trust PAS to offer detectorists understanding and education and outreach and liaison – and some more understanding – and definitely no criticism – as a result of which, very soon, more and more and more of them would see the light and become “responsible” rational citizens that recognised that their interests were as nothing compared with the interests of society and would start to regulate their own behaviour accordingly. In other words, they’d start to act like other people.

HA points out that five years on there are no fewer commercial metal detecting rallies in North Wiltshire. Those five years have seen the publication of a Code of Responsible Detecting.

Trouble is, although it’s centrepiece is the assertion that to be responsible you have to report all your finds to PAS, PAS’s own statistics clearly indicate most detectorists still don’t – despite PAS regularly re-jigging the basis of calculation to make things look better than they are. No change there then – after five years most detectorists are still not responsible as defined, they are still knowledge thieves, plain and simple.

HA points out that some Guidance on Rallies has been published, a belated acknowledgement that these events are extremely damaging

The problem is, the guidance doesn’t say what it should – don’t hold rallies, they are vandalism writ large – it merely offers some obvious suggestions that no-one with a conscience wouldn’t be doing already. Worse, some less-than-archaeology-friendly rally organisers are using guidance compliance as a marketing ploy. Crude bellicosity towards archaeologists and an endless succession of adverts for scores of rallies effectively saying “meet at the layby on the A1 and we’ll pilot you to the unpublished venue” hardly instills confidence in such rallies does it?

One other thing that has certainly happened over the past five years is that PAS staff

have spent 1800 days outreaching, educating and persuading detectorists so some of that must have rubbed off. Or has it? This very day, a few minutes drive from the place where the Near Avebury detecting disaster took place the Colchester detecting society is holding the Foxham Rally – which is depressing enough since it shows no progress has been made, but worse, they are holding it on pasture that has remained undisturbed for 100 years, this being in direct defiance of both the Code of Responsible Detecting and the Guidance on Rallies. Why? Because they haven’t heard it’s not acceptable? Hardly. The hapless taxpayer has spent millions of pounds and more than a decade trying to get that message through their skulls. Presumably then, simply because they want to and they can.

HA identify the profound flaw in the “persuasion, education and liaison strategy” that Britain alone has adopted, which they gracefully admit "might not have been obvious at the start" (hmmm)but forcefully point out "it certainly is now". Like all antiquity collectors, "You can inform the majority of detectorists what’s right till you’re blue in the face, but you can’t get them to do what’s right if they find it more self-fulfilling to do what’s wrong". The PAS database statistics, or looking in on collectors forums or talking with collectors clearly show the correctness of what HA are saying. An objective look at this evidence will show that attempts to deny this by labelling HA as "ignorant amateurs" by artefact hunters and collectors and their supporters in the archaeological world in Britain are just name-calling.

So is that it? Nothing has really changed over the past five years? PAS still liaising, most detectorists still helping themselves and North Wiltshire still subject to a self-serving pestilence? Pretty much. Except for one thing. Detectorists have used the extra five years provided by the liaison policy to lift another 1.44 million artefacts from the record, mostly without reporting them. How many is that? Well think of Wembley’s pitch. It wouldn’t be big enough to lay them all out. Britain is utterly barmy say know-nowt amateurs.

.
.
Vignette: commercial artefact hunters' base camp between a field of rape and a White Horse, says it all really.

New Code of Ethics for British Archaeologists

.
The Code of Conduct of the British Institute for Archaeology (former Institute of Field Archaeologists) amended at the EGM held during the IfA's Conference in Southport on 14 April 2010 and the revised version has been published. This is of interest as it was Rules 1.6 and 1.7 of Principle One which are those which were altered, and these refer to the sort of situations which arise when archaeologists are working with artefact collectors.

Anyway their original form [update of 10 February 2009] was as follows.

Principle 1
The member shall adhere to high standards of ethical and responsible behaviour in the conduct of archaeological affairs. [...]

1.6 A member shall know and comply with all laws applicable to his or her archaeological activities whether as employer or employee, and with national and international agreements relating to the illicit import, export or transfer of ownership of archaeological material. A member shall not engage in, and shall seek to discourage, illicit or unethical dealings in antiquities.

Note:
(a) The member should also consider his/her position in respect of seeking or accepting financial benefit on his/her own behalf or that of relatives in relation to the recovery or disposal of objects or materials recovered during archaeological work.
(b) A members (sic) must ensure that:
1) they do not knowingly permit their names or services to be used in a manner which may promote the recovery of archaeological material unless the primary objective of their work is to preserve the scientific integrity of the total site archive in a permanent professionally curated and publicly accessible collection, and unless provision is made for its study, interpretation and publication
2) they do not enter into any contract or agreement whereby archaeological or curatorial standards may be compromised in deference to commercial interests
3) so far as excavated material is concerned, they do not encourage the purchase of objects in any case where they have reasonable cause to believe that their recovery involved the deliberate unscientific destruction or damage of archaeological sites, and that they discourage the sale and consequent dispersal of excavated material
4) they do not encourage the purchase of objects where there is reasonable cause to believe that recovery involved the failure to disclose the finds to the proper legal or governmental authorities.

1.7 A member shall abstain from, and shall not sanction in others, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in archaeological matters, nor knowingly permit the use of his/her name in support of activities involving such conduct.

Note that 1.6 talks about encouraging the "purchase" of objects without mentioning "collecting" which surely is the point. This version of the Code seems to be still embedded in the 1970s when most artefact collecting was by purchase rather than going out in the muddy fields with a metal detector.

In the updated version some quite substantial changes have been made.

In place of the original text of 1.6 we now have:
1.6 A member shall know and comply with all laws applicable to his or her archaeological activities whether as employer or employee, and where appropriate with national and international treaties, conventions and charters including annexes and schedules [deleted: " and international agreements relating to the illicit import, export or transfer of ownership of archaeological material. A member shall not engage in, and shall seek to discourage, illicit or unethical dealings in antiquities"].

The notes have all been deleted and in part incorporated into principle 1.7. The new 1.6 now widens the scope of international charters, treaties and agreements, such as the 1954 Hague Convention, but also therefore the Valetta Convention - some of whose principles the UK has rejectd (Article 3 for example - but then "where appropriate", so you have to comply, but you don't really have to comply I suppose).

1.7 A member shall not knowingly be employed by, or contract with, an individual or entity whose purpose is the sale of items excavated and/or recovered from archaeological contexts and where such sale may lead to the irretrievable dispersal of the physical and/or intellectual archive, or where such sale may result in an undispersed archive to which public access is routinely denied.
Note: Members may be employed by or contract with, or participate in, projects approved by the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

The bit from 1.7 about dishonesty/fraudulent claims (a la "Tomb of Jesus" type nonsense) deleted from the original text is now 1.8 ("A member shall abstain from, and shall not sanction in others, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in archaeological matters, nor knowingly permit the use of his/her name in support of
activities involving such conduct").

The new 1.7 puts the archaeologists who get involved with treasure hunting firms like Odyssey in their place. It also however is a real kick below the belt though for anyone else working with metal detectorists on commercial artefact-hunting rallies, where artefacts are sold off by the landowner to all comers. An archaeologist's agreement to come along and facilitate the legitimisation of this artefact hunting by recording the finds of any detectorist who feels like showing them is indeed "contracting with" the entity doing the commercial artefact hunting. The IFA code codifies what I have been saying for a long time, participation in this activity is against archaeological ethics. This seems to me likely to be a direct result of the fuss that blew up over the Water Newton rally, a dispute the IFA were called upon to adjudiate. I'd still like to see something more explicit about collecting of antiquities - can a British archaeologist legitimately be a collector (of dug-up ancient coins from Bulgaria bought on eBay for example)? In the current pro-collecting climate in the UK, this seems to me to be a question well overdue an answer.

But hey, what is this? If John Brown MIFA, fictional archaeologist from Newcastle polytechnic was to agree to go along to "record finds" on a metal detecting rally, he'd be unethical according to the IFA Code of ethics. But if he first signs a contract with the PAS (or participate in a "project approved by the PAS"), the same activity is somehow not as archaeologically unethical? What nonsense is this? This recognises that what the PAS does is de facto outside archaeological ethics.

This is very odd. In any case, what are these "projects approved by the PAS" and on what basis does the PAS suddenly become the arbiter (through approval or witholding approval) of ethics binding on IFA members although it is itself outside them? We seem to be coming close to that thorny question of so-called Responsible Artefact Hunting. Also, does this mean that the PAS should now be seen as arbitrating good practice of projects in Scotland and Northern Ireland or anywhere else an IFA archaeologist may be working, but where the PAS has not so far actually had a remit to cover?

Metal-detector Archaeological Partnerships at Binchester: one or more?

One “Dunhelme Steve” wrote in the comments section of an earlier post on this blog:

metal detectorists are mostly law abiding decent people from all walks of life who take their hobby very seriously. the club i belong to work very closely with the p.a.s and archaeologists scanning their spoil heaps for them at our expense and time, last dig was binchester which lasted a month.

My ears pricked up as I remembered the name Binchester as having cropped up in a case study I was looking into a while back, and also the dig mentioned is run by Dave Petts and is covered by a blog. Oddly enough the contribution of the “local metal detecting club” is mentioned in only one post on that blog, so we are none the wiser what exactly was achieved in having them there. But anyway, good for them. Here’s the Durham County Council blurb on the dig:

Binchester excavation project 2009-2014 is a new programme of excavation which started in June 2009. This is a joint project with our partners at Durham University; Stanford University (California), and the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Northumberland and Durham. Part of the project will include a phase of public excavation in late June through to the middle of July.

What has been happening on outlying areas of this complex is however another case of metal detector enabled portable antiquity asset-stripping from a known site, something I have been looking into. It turns out that a commercial metal detecting rally was held in October 1999 on land which included an area of the Roman vicus attached to the Roman fort at Binchester. A search of the PAS database seems (one can never be sure these days) to reveal that none of these finds were entered on the PAS database (in 1999 the PAS covered only a limited number of counties and Durham was not among them). The Treasure Reports show however that metal detecting continues to take place here. The 2003 Treasure Report (Record T270, Page 56) features a gold (Roman?) finger ring found in May 2001 by Mr K Leach whilst searching with a metal detector in a field adjacent to the remains of the Roman fort of Vinovium.

Obviously then, the landowner of fields adjacent to the scheduled site sees nothing wrong with allowing artefact hunters to strip the area of any interesting metal collectables. Finds from “near Binchester” found by metal detecting in 2006-9 are also illustrated on the UKDFD. None are reported anywhere else.

One wonders just how many times the finds-rich fields in the vicinity of this scheduled site have been targetted by metal detector users (with or without the permission of the landowner) and what has been taken with no record made whatsoever.

The mere fact that metal detectorists "come from all walks of life" and “take their hobby very seriously” and in whatever they do are mostly "law abiding decent people" really is beside the point. The issue is not how nice they are, but what is happening to the archaeological record of Britain as a result of current UK polices towards the hobby of these nice people. Some of them work very closely with the PAS but then not all do, and - what is significant is - that even at the level of the vicinity of a single site as here, we do not know to what extent compliance matches non-compliance. We have no way of controlling what information is lost in the course of this activity stretching now over several years.

The fact that some nice guys went over the 2009 Binchester excavation spoilheaps with metal detectors in no way relates to what nice guys are doing with metal detectors to the archaeological evidence in the fields over the fence. Both groups however want to be treated as archaeology's partners, no matter what is happening out there in the fields.

The Minister and le malaise anglais

The “partnership” between British archaeologists and the country's band of takers of the past continues to do its damage abroad. On the 7th July this year in what appears to be a coordinated action, the metal detectorists of France banded together and sent a synchronised packet of questions to Frédéric Mitterrand, the French Minister of Culture and Transport. They want a “pact” like the Brits have, they want “respect”:

Ils souhaitent aujourd'hui la mise en place d'un pacte, audacieux et prometteur, de collaboration simple entre archéologues et détectoristes. Le prospecteur responsable connaît son terrain et peut męme se révéler ętre un auxiliaire intéressant pour l'archéologue. La législation anglaise a déjŕ mis en place un pacte de confiance, le « treasure act ». Aussi il souhaite savoir si le Gouvernement envisage de mettre en place un tel dispositif afin de permettre ŕ chacun, archéologues et prospecteurs, de voir son travail ou loisir respecté tout en respectant celui des autres.

The Minister answered this officially in the National Assembly on the 11th August and his reply was published after outlining the legislation of France and what it is based upon, and the fact that the English laws are a local aberration peculiar to that country, the Minister has some stinging words for Britain:

La question évoque le dispositif expérimenté en Angleterre, dit « Treasure Act ». Il s'agit tout d'abord de pratiques propres ŕ ce pays, qui s'appuient sur un régime juridique particulier des objets archéologiques, lequel s'écarte relativement du nôtre, et qui ne pourraient ętre transposées telles quelles. Si ces mesures ont effectivement permis d'augmenter le nombre des déclarations de découvertes d'objets archéologiques métalliques, elles n'ont en rien permis de réduire les atteintes au patrimoine générées par l'utilisation de détecteurs de métaux. Tout au plus permettent-elles de mesurer avec plus d'exactitude l'ampleur de ces atteintes.

{“If these measures have in fact permitted the number of declarations of the discovery of metallic archaeological objects to increase, they have in no way allowed a reduction in the number of attacks on the heritage caused by the use of metal detectors. All the same, they allow a more exact measurement of these attacks"}
[that last bit I included for the EU-sceptic conspiracy theorists :>) ].

So the Director of the Académie de France à Rome has not had the wool pulled over his eyes by the pro-artefact hunting claptrap about the “benefits” of allowing them to get on with emptying the collectables of British archaeological sites into their pockets. Good. Perhaps Roger Bland should invite a delegate from the French Ministry to the British Museum to the upcoming PAS conference to give participants a more rounded view of what people “in other countries” think of Britain’s “pact” with the history-takers. But France (Britain’s closest continental neighbour just a Channel Tunnel drive away) is not included in the provisional programme is it? I wonder if this is because the British Museum did not want to hear the preservation-orientated views of the French, or whether the French decided there was no point discussing this with the Brits.

Heritage Action's Erosion Counter half a million objects on

The Heritage Action Erosion Counter has been ticking away in the background as each metal detectorist in the UK takes away a few items worthy of PAS record here and a few items there for their personal collections from the soil. Today it has reached 10 500 000 objects. In the same time (though we still await the 2007 PAS annual report [!], not to mention the 2008 one), the number of items found by metal detectorists in England and Wales recorded by the PAS is a fraction of that.

The pro-collecting lobby (predictably) say the HA counter is ticking too fast (predictably without producing any evidence to support this case). In fact it corresponds to a rate of each metal detectorist in all the searching of "productive sites" and all the rallies they go to finding less than 30 objects of archaeological interest a year. Many "metal detectorists" however can find half that number of relics in a single weekend. I personally think that until we have more reliable evidence from a proper review of "metal detecting" and collecting practices, the HA erosion counter produces an entirely realistic picture, and one that poses a number of questions for the pro-collecting lobby to answer. I doubt, though, that they will.

New book on metal detecting published

A new book on metal detecting in the UK and elsewhere edited by Suzie Thomas and Peter Stone has just appeared. Well done to all concerned. Nice cover. The publisher's website say it costs fifty quid, but at least one on-line bookshop thinks it is worth much more. I have not seen it yet but am more or less conversant with what was planned to go into the book, and think it should be read by anyone interested in the portable antiquities debate. Despite ten years of "liaison" with artefact hunters and collectors in Britain, as far as I am aware there is not much in the way of book-length academic treatments of the subject on the market at the moment, so any account is bound to be valuable for students as well as the general heritage-keen reader.

Having said that, I am co-author (with Nigel Swift) of the less conventional 'alternative' view (due out soon from the same publisher which is nice - maybe our cover should have had the BACK end of the lion on it...), so I'd say to get a rounder view of the problems, it would be useful to buy both when the second one (which is just about the UK) comes out.

Diggin' in Virginia

In the past couple of decades, US archaeologists have developed a methodology of examining extensive topsoil sites such as battlefields and military encampments in a manner that helps reconstruct the flow of a historic fight, give insight into military strategy or, at a campsite, illuminate the living conditions of the soldiers there in a way that documentary evidence alone cannot. This approach was pioneered in the US. The work done at the site of Battle of Little Bighorn, Custer's Last Stand (1876), in Montana for example is a classic of this methodological approach in which metal detector users were involved. It also shows how easily the evidence held in the top few inches of topsoil can be destroyed if part of it is taken away by artefact hunters and collectors.

From Virginia, Brigid Schulte reports ('Unearthed War Relics See Battle Again Archaeologists Decry History Buffs' Digs ', Washington Post April 16, 2006) on a three-day commercial "safari" relic hunt called Diggin' in Virginia one weekend this spring, which was anything but the careful systematic work needed to investigate such a site. More than 200 relic hunters (interestingly dressed mainly in camouflage as in the UK) swept the fields of Brandy Rock Farm in Culpeper County with their metal detectors. To take part they'd paid a couple of hundred dollars each.
Obviousl some thought it was worth it. One metal detectorist is stated to have found a Confederate ‘Mississippi belt plate” apparently worth $12000, while others are quoted as getting excited about finding a Minié shot as “about as close as you can get to stepping back in time."

The site of this metal detecting rally – a form of exploitation of the archaeological resource which she reports is becoming increasingly popular in parts of the USA - was an 1863 Civil War campsite. While the “dig” was perfectly legal, the site was stripped of a large amount of any evidence of past activity it may have contained. Since no recording of findspots seems to have taken place here and all the finds have anyway been scattered into 200 personal collections and on eBay, that is now one more site of this period that can no longer be studied by more sophisticated investigation techniques to understand the past.

The same weekend as Diggin' in Virginia, 200 relic hunters roamed Fort Powhatan on the James River during the Texas-based North South Hunt, jockeying to see who could mine the most Revolutionary and Civil War goodies. (The same group holds the Grand National Relic Shootout and the Git R Dun hunts in Virginia.)

Again, it appears no recording of findspots was done and information was lost and the site irreparably damaged by the selective and unrecorded removal of part of the evidence.

US archaeologists are not slow to point out that such metal detecting rallies represent the wholesale destruction of evidence of the past. Kathleen Kilpatrick, director of the state's Department of Historic Resources says: "These digs are like ripping the pages out of a book as you read and setting them on fire […]"It's an outrage."

The metal detectorists counter such concerns with the same time-worn old excuses that we see in the UK . The relic hunters deny any connection with “the bad guys -- the ones who use night-vision goggles and sneak into protected sites at night to dig things up, or the ones who sell what they find on eBay”. “Metal detectorists” “have such a passion for the past”, “they write books on what they find” (references please). Some "pinpoint what they dug up”. Others have "donated hundreds of hours to help archaeologists”. “many of the places they dig have been ploughed for 140 years and that artifacts have been scattered, there is no context" (not true- see above). "This stuff's just rotting in the ground," “If these sites are so important, why haven't archaeologists staked their claim?” (heard of conservation guys?). We’ve heard it all before, it cuts no mustard when the overall effect is erosive and destructive.

Members of the Council of Virginia Archaeologists have begun protesting to state legislators and other officials and are enlisting the aid of local historic preservation groups. They've also contacted landowners to get them to stop the digs. Last year in the state's General Assembly, lawmakers considered a measure that would have required relic hunters to get written permission from landowners before digging, and to catalogue and report what they found. The bill also would have established that relics belonged to the state, not any individual. It was resoundingly crushed in committee. Del. Kenneth R. Plum (D-Fairfax) said he got hundreds of angry e-mails and letters for sponsoring the bill. "I was not prepared for what happened to me," he said. "The floodgates opened."

Oh, we can imagine. On a safari you are told never to get between a hippopotamus and water, it will attack you. Equally anyone suggesting that like some other finite resources artefacts in archaeological context should be under some form of state protection is asking for trouble from US collectors. Still, I do not expect Democratic delegates do much hanging around on US collectors’ forums and listen to the anti-establishment “cold dead hands’ pose-striking there.

What is more interesting is the anger that seems to have been directed at a proposal that it is reported “would have required relic hunters to get written permission from landowners before digging”, what on earth is so devastating about that? What actually is wrong in obliging those who dig up an historical site and take away artifacts from it to “catalogue and report what they found”?

We have all been witness to the constant barrage of calls from the artefact collecting community, and the US artefact collecting community in particular, for all those “source nations” (with their “restrictive laws” which stand between them and the ancient geegaws they want to decorate their collections with) to adopt “the British system”. By this they mean hefty rewards for reporting state-acquired finds, archaeologists working as “partners” of the artefact hunters to record as much as possible of the findspot information, but teh artefact hunter talking away (for example to sell to US collectors) as much as they want. So why is it so difficult for them to apply a system based on similar principles in their own country? Why are US relic hunters against the recording of finds? Why have US detectorists not even set up something like the UKDFD, let alone lobbied strenuously for the US government to set aside the funds required to set up an archaeological outreach programme like the PAS which would record finds made by members of the public in the course of their everyday and recreational activities? It seems to me that before calling for other nations to change their whole system of heritage management to suit the US collector, US advocates of collectors' "rights" should be applying it consistently to their own land. Before they can convert foreign governments, civil society and artefact hunters to the British system, let them convince their own. So what about it ACCG, when do you start?

Photo: "History Buff" looking for pieces of the past to take home. Photo Lucian Perkins.

Irish Treasure Hunter's Daughter 'had no idea'

The Gardai (police) in Roscommon and Dublin noticed something interesting among a haul of stolen goods they recovered from a Dublin house when they apprehended two suspected burglars. Among the items which they determined had been recently stolen from a Strokestown chemist's safe, was a Bronze Age gold Lunula and two gold Sun Discs. The deceased finder's daughter from whom the'd been stolen claimed she had "no idea of the value" or the age of the artefacts which she'd kept locked in a safe for 40 years.

In Ireland since the 1926 antiquities act it has been illegal to search for archaeological artefacts without a licence and an obligation to report all finds was introduced. That doesn't stop some people; as a result, objects such as these are removed from their original archaeological contexts and priceless archaeological information is lost forever. In this case the finder decided to keep these items for himself, and any information about where they came from was lost with his death.

Following the Derrynaflan Hoard court case in the 1980s the law was strengthened with regard to metal detecting. Current Irish law states that any and all artefacts found, belong to the state and must be reported. The National Museum has no legal obligation to reward anyone for doing so, but generally does to encourage reporting. It did not work this time though, did it?

The writer of Blather.net which I used as a basis for this report comments:

such priceless artefacts belong to ALL the people of Ireland who share the right to have such national treasures safeguarded and presented to the public. Along with the right NOT to have to pay inordinate prices to get their own heritage back from other thieving Irish ****s, I mean, people, who plundered it
from its find spot in the first place. Ireland has one of the most progressive legislation in Europe when it comes to this type of thing. Spare a thought for our neighbours in England, where metal detecting on private land IS legal. Known battlefields and archaeological sites which have not been scheduled by the government are sometimes used to hold metal detecting 'rallies', with the landowners permission. The Portable Antiquities Scheme is sometimes forced to set up a stand [there], in the hope that 'participants' voluntarily bring over their finds for examination. It is a rare case where Ireland leads the way on certain issues and legislation. Now, of course the Strokestown find was probably nothing of the sort. At all. The said items will be formally presented to the National Museum sometime this week. No doubt through gritted teeth. But all's well that ends well. Thanks to several thieving bastards, separated by four decades, we can now take solace in the fact that as it went unreported to the Museum, there's no need for a 'finders fee'.

Photo: the lunula and sun discs.