British Archaeology, Outreach and "Little Green PAS-Men"

Volunteers arrive in mismatched camoflage

The secrecy surrounding the Heritage Lottery-funded PAStExplorers recording scheme to be manned by mysterious 'volunteers' has aroused much speculation in recent months. The PAS is refusing to say where these volunteers will be recruited, who they will be, what milieus they will be they are coming from and what interests they have in strengthening the PAS hold on archaeological outreach. In particular, there has been total silence on the all-important question of the security of findspot data in the hands of these 500 unknown individuals scattered in ten regional centres, or indeed to what data and resources these people will have access. A PACHI reporter was in Bloomsbury Square this morning as the first volunteers arrived for briefing at 41 Russell Square, Camden Town:

As a column of muddy cars arrived outside number 41 on Monday morning, a pirate flag fluttered from one of its windows. As the volunteers clambered out, locals crowded around them in the square. There was rampant speculation about who these men in mismatched camouflage were. The men themselves were reluctant to talk to journalists about their identity or intentions, though it was clear that there were definitely green men among them. From their demeanour it appeared that the bulk of them were not  professional finds specialists. Several people peered nervously into the back of one of the cars, there were long packages there, which could have contained metal detectors or weapons, but onlookers were quickly ushered away and the men filed silently into the building.

The whole idea of the PAS was so that members of the public who'd found archaeological artefacts would be able to take them directly to an archaeologist who would then 'liaise' with them and thus provide public outreach and where necessary guidance and encouragement on 'best practice'. That concept quickly became bowdlerised to 'best practice=going to the PAS'.

Now it seems the core element of the Scheme is being scrapped, members of the public apparently will not be coming into direct contact with real archaeologists, but volunteers 'trained' to fulfil the role of pretend archaeologists (who very well may then 'liaise' with the archaeologists they are working under). The whole concept of liaison has all-too-clearly been subsumed under the overall aim of "getting as much stuff in the database, no matter what" which is simply a perversion of the reasons why the Portable Antiquities Scheme was set up. The database was a tool and not the aim in its own right it has now become.

Meanwhile there are justified grounds to believe that many of these 'volunteer ersatz-liaison officers' will in fact be coming from artefact hunting and collecting circles, and not in any way representing to the public the aims and concepts of archaeology, but an object-centred approach to the past (PASt). This is exactly the equivalent of the un-unifoirmed and unacknowledged "little Green men" who are presently an instrument in the attempt to wrest Crimea and the Donbas from the Ukrainians through clandestine infiltration through poorly-defended borders.

PAS, when will you inform us, who - specifically - ARE your little Green Men going to be? 

Britain's Archaeological Outreach: "New Series About Artefact Hunting" on ITV

.
Fourteen million quid of public money on outreach and CBA involvement is not wasted then:

"Britain's secret treasure", new series about metal detecting
coming in the late summer on ITV. 

 (Twitter feed from Hidden History Ltd @HiddenHistoryuk [http://Www.hiddenhistoryltd.com])

Meanwhile others think the programme signals that the BM needs help in keeping its records in order:

Greenlit: Britain’s Secret Treasure, ITV1   By TV Mole ⋅ April 1, 2012

Britain’s Secret Treasure (4 x 30′ + 2 x 60′) -  Michael Buerk and historian Bettany Hughes join forces to catalogue  some of the million objects handed in by the British public to the British Museum for safe keeping [...]

So all these artefact hunters are out there in the fields finding a million objects which never go into their own collections, or scrap bucket or onto eBay, but they are all "handed in" (for free?) "to the British Museum for safe keeping" so that we can all have access to them? That's nice of them. And what does the British Museum do with them?


This twitter feed shows a wide range of opinions on what the programme is about:
The CBA tries to explain:

mikeheyworth Mike Heyworth - Major archaeology show to run on ITV during the CBA Festival of British Archaeology with focus on knowledge from finds   http://t.co/YAPr44nr 03/26/2012

 Meanwhile the metal detectorists are sure it is going to show artefact collecting in a good light:

thesearchermag The Searcher - Britain's Secret Treasures show judges the merits of antiquities discovered in the UK in last 15 years http://t.co/5PeKlAWU   03/26/2012

 maxineloader Maxine Loader @Historyandlife http://t.co/5WF2IFzD - Read this and note the bit that says "Most were found by amateurs using metal detectors"! (hint hint) 03/26/2012

Others seem guided by the 'talent show' presentation:

jlrivard Jean-Louis Rivard TV treasure hunt show to pick Britain's most important archaeological find - http://t.co/Cgd0DSvi #archaeology   04/04/2012

sotaterra Sota terra -  Britain's Secret Treasures: un programa que es preguntarà quina és la descoberta arqueològica britànica més important http://t.co/szu8AO69  03/27/2012

While others still are not fooled one bit:

crumbolina Pippa Shawley - Another stupid treasure-hunting tv programme masquerading as archaeology http://t.co/sXp5TB4K via @mediaguardian   03/26/2012

gwuarchaeology GWU Archaeology - Yet another show glorifying treasure hunting... http://t.co/xUbmWu8S http://t.co/Sh99vrdr  03/27/2012

medievalcombats Medieval Combat# - Heritage reduced to a #beauty contest? #Shame http://t.co/amooRbu9 42 days ago

 museumsecurity Ton Cremers - TV treasure hunt show to pick Britain's most important archaeological find - http://t.co/yqBerXJC    42 days ago

It is notable that many other tweeters here seem to think the programme will deal with the "most important archaeological finds in the past 15 years" as if there were no professional archaeology going on at all in Britain and the Portable Antiquities Scheme is all there is. Possibly that is the way things are going of course. who needs more expensive excavations is all we need to get "lottsa knowledge" about the past is a heap of finds hoiked out of the ground with a metal detector?

Is it naive to hope that  public misunderstandings about portable antiquity collecting issues in Britain will be resolved by the airing of this programme? Or will it only do a great deal to increase them?

Detecting Under the Microscope: The PAS as a Source of the Bias?

.
The PAS is going to spend 150K to try and tell archaeologists how to use their database and ignore the bias which it seems they feel they can no longer ignore. I wonder how detailed their account will be of where we should take their own activities into account? I mentioned the other day the way that it has been observed that in attempts to use "data" (I use the term loosely) from metal detecting to look at intra-site distributions, that the patterns are skewed by the fact that the finder gets to take the goodies home, so they want to search in the areas where the best and most "stuff" is found, which of course messes up any attempt to treat this as objective sampling.  It gets worse, as this account from a rally indicates:

I went to the Flos tent about 2pm and queued to get my early finds recorded; and they had a map of the fields there with all the find spots marked! Having seen where the "Hot spots" were I proceeded tothose areas and had more finds

One might suggest that this could even be a deliberate tactic. Having identified which rally participants are more likely to bring their finds in for recording with the PAS, it certainly does the database statistics the world of good to show these individuals where most of the finds are being made, so (as we see above) those who bring finds in for recording head straight out there, to bring back even more finds to boost the statistics which the PAS seems to regard as their whole raison d'etre. This would be regardless of the fact that concentrating artefact hunters in those areas, rather than having them scattered, concentrates their destructive effects on certain areas of the archaeological record. If this is deliberate policy, it is an archaeologically destructive one.

We must also remember that if you or I try to find out where precisely a particular artefact on the PAS database was found (for example somewhere near our own home), we cannot. PAS hides this information from the people who pay their salaries on the grounds that some of us cannot be trusted not to go out with a metal detector and visit the same spot to see what WE can find, even though the vast majority of people with access to the database are never likely to every have a metal detector in their hands in their life. Yet here, metal detector owners are being shown where other metal detector owners have had a lot of success finding things to collect and sell.  The policies of the PAS on access to information on findspots seem totally lacking in consistency.

Telling artefact hunters on a commercial rally how to maximize hits and depletion really does not square too well with then spending £150K telling researchers how to make allowance for bias in the resultant database! One way the PAS could facilitate this is writing an individual report about each commercial rally they collect their "data" from, including information not present in the individual records on the database. Such a report would set out the various factors which will affect the information acquired (precise boundaries of area searched, intensity of activity across different parts of the areas), what is likely to have been missed (or simply walked-off with without recording), and most importantly reflecting on the state of what is left of the archaeological record at that spot when they leave. That's how to allow researchers using their records as a source of information can learn what biases may have been introduced by the way the information was collected in each individual case, and only that will allow them to use that information in any form of analysis more sophisticated than a simple and crudely macro-scale presence-absence-here dot-distribution map. 

Detecting Under the Microscope: Grave Robbing at Catterick

.
Over on the BAJR website the discussion goes on about using metal detecting finds as archaeological data. One member adds the following:

Screening the web sales sites would add unreported data, it's amazing how often the vendors are quite happy to blatently give the provenance of the plundered booty. We (local archaeologists, EH, the police etc) know there's an Anglian cemetery being dug out somewhere around Catterick cos thats what's tagged on all the finds for sale on the web (which include non-metal beads etc so we know they're taking a spade to burials), so its possible to add a vague spot to distribution maps and even get some idea of date etc, just would be nice to know exactly where it is and get it either protected in some way or dug properly.

I really think comment is superfluous. Especially as these finds have been continuously augmented on eBay now for coming up to a decade as far as I am aware. See how useless British law is at protecting sites? You cannot touch them for it, "it's legal innit?"  

Focus on Metal Detecting: Site-Wrecker Depth Detectors, Shh, Pretend You're not Interested

A while ago the metal detecting forums were all agog with details of the tests of the Blisstool LTC64 V3 and how powerful it seems to be. It apparently reaches depths that other machines cannot, while being cheaper than the equivalent Minelab GPX 5000 machines. Nowadays when most of the more accessible "productive" sites have been "hammered" depth has become even more of an obsession amongst detectorists, the easiest way to accumulate a personal collection or artefacts now is to get them from deeper and deeper layers of the searched site (Readers may remember that this is an issue that both this writer and heritage action have been urging that the PAS raise with policy makers, there is no sign that they actually have so). Anyhow Heritage Action have again raised the alarm about the proliferation of cheaper "depth advantage" machines ('A second open letter to the Heritage Forum'). No reaction from the heritage "professionals" but an interesting one from the metal detectorists. Over on the Detecting Wales forum the thread “Blisstool LTC64 V3 The Worlds Deepest Detector?” suddenly disappeared. It turns out that the thread had been  hidden by the site administrator and details can only be exchanged through the forum's private mail system. Just in case somebody's looking eh? Just in case somebody's looking and reach a conclusion about the way artefact hunting is going these days which detectorists would rather keep unsaid. 

Historic Discovery by the PAS, An Unknown Pope

. 

In their search for objects made of more precious metal, most treasure hunters tend to ignore archaeological artefacts made of lead discovered. Metal detectorist Alun Tussle from Gaer Diffymawr, Gwent was only prevented from putting a small disc of lead in his scrap pouch when he saw two faces peering out of the mud while metal detecting a Roman site in Caerleon near his home. When he got it home and washed it, he realised that it had writing on it and to find out whether he had found something valuable, he took it to his good friends, amateur historians Baran Blackheart and Callan Titwit (world-famous authors of "Britain's True History from Authentic Documents" and discoverers of the Holy Grail, grave of King Arthur and the Ark of the Covenant all within walking distance of their little town in South Wales). Realising at once the true significance of the object and where it was found, the two instructed him to take it to the Potable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) to claim his reward.

 The region's Finds Liaison Officer Fionella Sloan-Squarre says "when Mr Tussle showed me what he'd got in his trouser pocket, I was flabbergasted. It is not every day that you see such a valuable item - historically, that is. I immediately phoned my bosses in London to inform them". Mr Tussle was disappointed to learn that despite the value of the find, which is purely historical, because the find is not gold or silver nor a hoard, he is not entitled to a reward. "It's not a about the money", he smiled wryly.

What Mr Tussle had found metal detecting in the southwest corner of the walled Roman town at Caerleon is what is known as a "papal bull". It is a lead seal that was placed on documents issued by the Papal Chancellery in and sent to dignitaries of the early Church. The representations on one side of two saints show St Paul and St Peter with the inscription SPA[ul] SPE[eter]. The reverse bearing the name of the issuer is what excited Blackheart and Titwit . It bears the name of ELEVTHERIVS, followed by the numeral "I" and the title PP [pontifex].

 As Ms Sloan-Squarre explained, reliable historians such as Geoffrey of Monmouth make reference to an early mission to England sent by a Pope Eleutherus to King Lucius of Britain. William of Malmesbury records that he sent SS. Fugatius and Damianus (rather Dumianus or Duvianus) over to Britain. These missionaries baptized King Lucius and many others, and "the Britons enjoyed the light of faith in peace till the reign of Diocletian". Lucius therefore was the first Christian king in Europe.

 The problem is Bede (Hist. l. 1. c. 4) dates the mission to 167 when there was no Pope Eleutherus in Rome. The pontif in that year was Anicetus (150-167) and foreign historians say he was followed by Soter whose short pontificate was followed by that of Saint Eleuterus (Greek: Ελευθέριος), much later than the historical date of the conversion of Lucius. On these grounds, professional historians have attacked the validity of these earliest records of The True British History. Now, this new discovery rewrites history. It seems there were in fact two Popes called Eleutherius, the first of which was the one to whom Lucius had sent his embassy in 167, but he had later been written out of history in an effort to hide The True British History which made Britain the earliest Christian nation in Europe.

What is more, Blackheart and Titwit explain, the findspot shows that the Pope was sending letters to the bishops of Lucius in Caerleon, not London - so probably during the Roman occupation of the eastern parts of the Island, this small town now in Wales was the capital of all of Britain at the time.

Ms Sloan Squarre stresses that it seems once again, in partnership with the PAS, the discovery of an amateur proves the so-called "experts" totally wrong. "In a year when we’re all celebrating what it means to be British, finds like this made by amateur searchers show how they can reveal the hidden events that have shaped our past and made our great nation what we are today".

It is interesting to note that coins or medals of King Lucius were recorded by early collectors, such as one mentioned by Archbishop Usher (Antiq. Britain, c. 3, p. 22. Guthrie, Hist. of England, b. 1. ), and one by the French connoisseur Bouterue. They had been disregarded as fakes by professional historians but the discovery of the Caerleon Eletherius I bull suggests we should look at the issue of their authenticity again. The problem is nobody knows what has happened to these privately-owned items, they never made it down the ages to a public collection. No bulls of (Saint) Eleutherius II have so far been discovered, Mr Tussle is out in the fields of South Wales looking for them now.

UPDATE:
to better understand the context of this text, note that it was posted on April 1st (April Fool's Day). OK, too long and involved to be funny - better luck next year.

Photo: Potable Antiquities Scheme

UK TV "Archaeology": Travesty Heritage - Not "Rolling Over" but "Partnering"

.
So, like Spike TV's "American Digger" and the National Geographic Diggers", Britain is not going to be saved the spectacle of televised pandering to the treasure hunters. Apparently the UK too is going to be subjected to:

over a week of primetime television programmes [on metal detecting] being made for ITV, Britain's Secret Treasures, to be broadcast in July and presented by the historian Bettany Hughes and the veteran journalist Michael Buerk in his first appearance on the channel. Although filming continues, the arguments are already passionate as the team attempts to narrow down almost a million objects recorded by the British Museum to a shortlist of 50. Most were found by amateurs using metal detectors, but others were uncovered by the mudlarks who comb the muddy foreshore of the Thames at low tide [...] All the objects, from the most corroded Roman hob-nailed boot stud or lumpy fire-blackened pot to the gold and garnet glory of the Anglo-Saxon jewellery, are logged in the now vast treasure and portable antiquities databases held at the British Museum. Since the antiquities scheme was launched 15 years ago thousands of amateurs using metal detectors have been encouraged to report everything they find through a network of officers covering the country.

Well, this is not exactly what a leaked document I saw had projected, but it still sounds gruesomely antiquitist enough to make me think that this is going to be an archaeological public relations disaster. It is clear the PAS is deeply involved in this and as archaeology's "biggest public outreach" this should have been more widely consulted than it obviously was (has the PAS answered RESCUE's letter yet? Last I heard they had not stooped to do so).

Roger Bland, keeper of portable antiquities and treasure at the British Museum, said they were excited about the chance to highlight the success of the scheme, the programmes will also inevitably revive the passionate debate about the ethics of metal detecting for antiquities, which some archaeologists regard as no better than looting.

Too blooming right it will. On the "success" of the PAS, the brief post this afternoon by Heritage Action (simply called "Sickening") says it all. Still, it is nice to see the British media for once looking a little bit further than the PAS press-releases handed out by the Bloomsbury sub-office of the Ministry of Tekkie Propaganda and looking to see what else is happening outside Russell Square:

Paul Barford, a British archaeologist based in Poland, who runs a fiercely anti-metal-detecting blog, has already described the series as "a travesty", and one commentator posted on his site saying: "All archaeologists in this country should be speaking out against this rape of our heritage instead of just rolling over and letting it go on." A similar row has broken out in the US about two programmes on cable channels about antiquities finders: American Digger on Spike TV, starring Ric Savage, who has abandoned wrestling and his former alias Heavy Metal to take up metal detecting, and Diggers on National Geographic, which has been accused in a letter from the Archaeological Institute of America of encouraging looting and destruction.

"Fiercely"? I do not recall the exact comment Maeve Kennedy quotes, but it sure sounds like Nigel Swift. And yes, what excruciatingly bad timing, the PAS ITV special coming out at the same time as American Digger!! A massive home goal for the pro-artefact-hunting lobbyists among my archaeological colleagues. Let us see the difference between the reaction of the US heritage professionals and conservation-minded public and the British heritage professionals and conservation-minded public. Shame on ALL involved in this, and all who stood by and watched.

Maev Kennedy, 'TV treasure hunt show to pick Britain's most important archaeological find', Guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 March 2012

UK TV "Archaeology": PAS Reality Show - Britain Got Antiquitalent

.
According to apparently exclusive material that it seems only Maeve Kennedy received (three guesses, from whom) this new programme about archaeology ("Britain's Secret Treasures") is conducted at the intellectual level of a talent show:

Historians and archaeologists are arguing over the single most historically important archaeological find among almost a million objects discovered in the UK in the last 15 years.

Almost a "million objects" found by whom turns out to be those found mainly by metal detectorists. And the institution insisting we look at individual decontextualised artefacts to see which ONE of them is "the most important" (ie justifying spending 14 million quid on providing a supporting role for metal detectorists) is the very same supporting role, the metal detectorists' "partner" the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Which "one" artefact taken on its own merits is the most HISTORICALLY important? What do we mean by "historically important" anyway?

Is this antiquitist talent-show winner going to be, as the journalist suggests:
1) the heap of glittering Anglo-Saxon gold of the Staffordshire Hoard,
2) a scruffy little coin that proved the existence of a previously unknown Roman emperor,
3) a bronze token that some claim entitled the bearer to the illustrated services in a Roman brothel,
4) a stone hand axe, or
5) the Crosby Garrett Roman helmet...


If we are talking about "Battles and Kings History", then a new emperor must be a strong contender, but is a nineteenth century fixation on a battles and kings historiography where British historical sciences are in 2012? Top of the titillation stakes must be the so called "brothel token" - but is it history? Is it a new fact that there were brothels in Roman times, or - if it actually was a brothel token - is this find merely an illustration of this fact? (As is the Domitian the umpteenth coin an illustration that there were many short-lived usurpers in the Roman Empire). The Crosby Garrett helmet in its polyfillered form is wonderful, but what does it add to the "history" of anything when we do not even know where it was found and how it got there? It again is just an illustration of certain facts known from other sources, but as an independent source of information its use is limited by the way it was found, then treated and the lack of any proper archaeological followup. So, what kind of "history" is the PAS engaged in writing? What kind of 21st century archaeology is it engaged in producing? Most of what I have seen them produce (when it is not pure whimsy for the benefit of the awed journalists) is in the old-fashioned positivist ethno-cultural-historical mould very much to the tastes of the likes of Gustav Kossinna, but hardly cutting edge stuff. So is this the best heritage TV it can offer the British public for its fourteen million pound investment in archaeological outreach? Because if it is its a pretty poor showing for fourteen years of money thrown at the problem.

Roger Bland is allegedly afraid that "the programmes will also inevitably revive the passionate debate about the ethics of metal detecting for antiquities, which some archaeologists regard as no better than looting". Well, goodness' me, should not the fourteen-million pound Portable Antiquities Scheme be LEADING and encouraging this debate and not afraid that somebody else might mention the subject? Let Mr Bland first start out and explain to the general public the actual difference between what his "partners" and their fellows do and "looting" (one which goes further than the tekkie: "it's legal innit?"). Can he do that for fourteen million pounds?

Maev Kennedy, 'TV treasure hunt show to pick Britain's most important archaeological find', Guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 March 2012
British Museum Press Office: 'ITV and the British Museum to reveal the 50 greatest treasures discovered by the British public', Monday 26 March 2012
 

Focus on Metal Detecting: Respect Our History

.
Allow me to quote something from the SAFE blog:

Respect Our History: End Production of American Digger and Diggers!

"The undersigned institutions join the growing tide of concern about the National Geographic Channel’s new series “Diggers” and Spike TV’s forthcoming series “American Digger,”both of which are designed to amuse and entertain audiences while glorifying the indiscriminate destruction of American history by artifact hunters. The teaser advertisement for “American Digger” gives a good indication of how little the producers of these shows value the historical record; the show aims to “scour target-rich areas such as battlefields and historic sites, in hopes of striking it rich by unearthing and selling rare pieces of American history.”

America’s cultural heritage is worth more to all of us than the few dollars that the “diggers” will pocket as a result of their exploits. The activities highlighted by these shows destroy the archaeological record, and in many cases cause damage to the historic site that remains. America’s battlefields and historic sites deserve more respect than they would if they were to serve as the personal hunting ground for treasure seekers and pothunters".

The online petition to one of the TV companies has 18700 signatures against continuing the programme.

I idly wonder should that programme have been emitted first in the UK, and some bold heritage professional started up a petition to "say no", what would have happened? Well, first the metal detectorists of Britain would go nuts ("how can they say this about us?/it's legal innit?/ Jus' think of all the GOOD we all do!"). There would be letter writing campaigns to the media. The PAS would be asked to "say something" on behalf of the responsible blokes who are archaeology's "partners" (I will discretely reserve comment on what I personally think the PAS would do). And how many members of the British public would sign the petition? My bet is they'd be hard pushed to get seven hundred signatures, such is the extent of the bamboozling of the British public over such issues. And who is to blame for that? I leave you to decide. But some readers will know my opinion ("Archaeological outreach", my armpit).

Vignette: Bulky US tekkie "protecting the heritage" with a whacking big hammer (Photo: Jeff Daly/Spike TV, via PictureGroup)

How many Objects are PAS "Finders" Finding and Keeping?

.
It is interesting to look through the PAS statistics for the self-recording finders. There is an inherent probability that many of them are collectors with collections (and the knowledge about the items) so the figures of items recorded in a year will give an idea about the accumulation of objects.

vivienne wilson	PUBLIC	4	4
Linz	PUBLIC	475	475
Gerald Cramp	PUBLIC	1	1
alan charman	PUBLIC	172	169
trevor	PUBLIC	5	5
Patrick	PUBLIC	182	182
Len Eeles	PUBLIC	412	404
David Calow	PUBLIC	67	67
Richard Gibson	PUBLIC	11	11
kally	PUBLIC	21	10
keith	PUBLIC	3	3
Ryan	PUBLIC	330	330
Roger	PUBLIC	166	166
Kathy	PUBLIC	641	641
Graham Hill	PUBLIC	871	871
Adrian	PUBLIC	216	216
Richard Milton	PUBLIC	5	5
George	PUBLIC	135	135
Jenny	PUBLIC	254	254
Jenna	PUBLIC	93	93
Nick	PUBLIC	15	15
Bob Dick	PUBLIC	1	1
Geoff	PUBLIC	62	62
Ian Richards	PUBLIC	5	5
tony	PUBLIC	246	246
Marcus Ashley	PUBLIC	7	7
Roy Powell	PUBLIC	4	4
Ange Zammit	PUBLIC	3	3
Rowena Hart	PUBLIC	2	2
charles bullock	PUBLIC	14	14
Russell Peach	PUBLIC	1	1
Graham Bould	PUBLIC	37	37
Bish	PUBLIC	65	65
Paul Sullivan	PUBLIC	53	53
David Roberts	PUBLIC	37	37
Alex Bliss	PUBLIC	44	28
Dave Miles	PUBLIC	3	3
Donnydave	PUBLIC	53	53
Gary Bankhead	PUBLIC	37	37
Tom Redmayne	PUBLIC	291	291
John Brassey	PUBLIC	2	2
John Dury	PUBLIC	1	1
frank	PUBLIC	1	1
Eloise Markwick	PUBLIC	29	29
Dan	PUBLIC	17	17
Robert Pliszka	PUBLIC	5	5
Tony Bardsley	PUBLIC	1	1
R Guide	PUBLIC	20	20
Ed Lea	PUBLIC	7	7
chez	PUBLIC	4	4
Bernie Spiegelhalter	PUBLIC	16	15
Mark	PUBLIC	2	2
Steve	PUBLIC	134	134
clivenobbs	PUBLIC	7	7
Shaun	PUBLIC	4	4
Fiona	PUBLIC	2	2
terry mallison	PUBLIC	1	1
Pat Filgate	PUBLIC	5	5
Andy	PUBLIC	2	2
Ian Glendinning	PUBLIC	4	4
Ann Other	PUBLIC	4	4
colin	PUBLIC	2	2
Brin Head	PUBLIC	1	1
darren	PUBLIC	1	1
Richie Morrissey	PUBLIC	1	1
eddie	PUBLIC	1	1
Colin Knight	PUBLIC	1	1
Rosemarie Louise Clancey	PUBLIC	12	7
Ringo	PUBLIC	2	2
owen elms	PUBLIC	1	1
wayne burton	PUBLIC	4	4
Wendy Thompson	PUBLIC	2	2
John	PUBLIC	2	2
vicky	PUBLIC	12	12
Daniel	PUBLIC	1	1
john brownsell	PUBLIC	4	4
Neil Henry-Robertson	PUBLIC	5	5
andrew fox	PUBLIC	3	3
mrix	PUBLIC	1	1
Roger Munden	PUBLIC	3	3
Jason Moos	PUBLIC	266	261

Obviously not all of the finds recorded on the PAS database in 2011 by Finder X will have been found in 2011, some of these people may be dealing with backlogs going back several years of non-reported finds. Likewise those who record just one or two may have many more objects at home, but they were just trying out the system (or boosting 'recorders' statistics for the PAS). Nevertheless these figures provide quite an interesting contrast with the figures for reporting of finds for 2011, where statistically one detectorist in England and Wales corresponds to just under eight finds in the PAS database, when it is clear that many will find this many recordable finds in a single weekend. So, what is happening to the rest?
.

Phil not as Exciting as they Say

.
The BBC carries a breathless story about another "ancient treasure" found by those awfully nice chaps with metal detectors. This is a coin of William the Bastard (known to his friends as P[th]illiam) wielding the Bastard's Sword in order to show those islanders who's boss and why. It was the sixth type struck by the bloke since he arrived in Britain in 1066. Most of us reckon though that most coins of William I are pretty distinctive in style, but the metal detectoress, Maureen Jones - a member of Taynton Metal Detecting Club - who found this admits she did not recognise it. Despite what the ACCG coineys assert to always be the case, this silver coin had not travelled very far from the mint before it was lost, it had been minted in Gloucester by a moneyer called Silacwine (I know a bloke called Silaction, I wonder if they are related?). The BBC journalist and coin dealer Dave Welsh across the sea are getting very excited and saying that it somehow vindicates Britain's policies on metal detecting because... "it is unique". To be more precise its the only coin of this phase of William's minting which is so far known to have been struck in Gloucester which allowed the FLO his trite news-media story: "the find "filled in the hole" in the dates the Gloucester mint was known to have been operating" and pandering to the crass question "wot it's werth then", says "the penny coin would have been "quite valuable" at the time that it is thought to been lost by its owner more than 900 years ago". The "hole" by the way is a three-year one 1077-1080.

The trouble is, with sixty mints, with several times that number of moneyers in operation 1066-1087, and a relatively small number of coins of William the Conquerer which survived later reminting, it is relatively easy in the issues of William I and his immediate successors to point to very many coins which are one-of-a-kind. As jeered the hammered Coin Collectors Yahoo forum, in this type of collecting coins of which four examples survive are considered 'relatively common'. Mr Adams, the FLO quoted in the BBC interview would, surely, have known that, overseas professional numismatist Dave Welsh perhaps not, but should have checked before shouting his mouth off parroting what some journalist scribbled.

This is a typical example of the PAS making a media mountain out of a molehill, desperately trying to keep the PAS in the news, with yet another "exciting find well worth thirteen million quid thrown at the Scheme so far".

What really would make news would be if Ms Jones from Taynton could tell us what her searches had revealed about what was happening in that field in the late eleventh century which provides the context for that coin turning up precisely where it did, and how that fitted into the cultural landscape of the region around. If a metal detectorist was able to do that in a manner that would allow the results to be documented properly, that would be newsworthy. Just another coin however is not, not really. One can get coin fatigue looking at the PAS database, too many coins, not enough proper archaeology.

Vignette: William (Phil) the Bastard looking a bit miffed that Ms Jones did not recognize him.

Most Moronic Archaeological-Partner Quote of the Month

.
I believe that to get a job in the PAS you have to do an induction course on speaking trite nonsense to the press. The Suffolk FLO probably passed with flying colours. Talking about the discovery on farmland by two of those awfully nice chaps with metal detectors (a father and son) of some late fourth century Roman coins - immensely uncommon in the county - near Mildenhall, Suffolk, Dr Andrew Brown, Suffolk County Council's finds recording officer, said:

"It does suggest that there were relatively high status people living there during Roman times [...] They were probably deposited in the ground at around the date of the latest coins, or possibly a little later [...]"

and they have pictures on them too, so we can see what people looked like... There's some brilliant archaeological outreach for yer. Dr Brown might have talked about why some of the siliquae were smaller than the rest - but if he did it never made it to the papers.

BBC, 'Suffolk Roman gold and silver coins declared treasure', 14 February 2012.

Who Will "Outreach" to Landowners with “No reporting – No permission”?

.
The new Stop Taking Our Past (STOP) campaign being promoted by British conservation group Heritage Action (see here) couldn’t be more beneficial as it simply asks farmers to ensure all finds made by artefact hunting metal detectorists get reported. The campaign takes a stand which can only be beneficial for archaeology, archaeologists, landowners and the public.

Unlike the original STOP campaign it’s not going away so hopefully every landowner in Britain will hear about it. We’d really appreciate some help though. So as we said before, if you’re a history lover, archaeologist or ethical detectorist please spread the message – “No reporting – No permission”. Why wouldn’t you?

It would be good to see now the appearance of a webpage detailing the damage done to the archaeological record and the public's knowledge about the past caused by artefact hunters and detectorists taking and not reporting what they've taken away. Obviously Heritage Action are more than capable of producing such a piece of public outreach about portable antiquities. But there IS, isn't there, an organization in England which over the years has been getting a lot of dosh for doing precisely that and has been accumulating quite a bit of experience in talking to the public as well as the media on (one presumes) precisely that. How about it PAS ladies and gentlemen? Will you fall in behind Heritage Action and help them promote the message that artefact seekers reporting finds to the PAS (to yourselves!) is the only responsible way forward? or will you give it a miss and leave it up to them to do?

PAS (Again) Not Too Quick Off the Mark...

.
This is odd. I posted this story nearly two weeks ago and it was old news then. The BM (I assume PAS) read my post that same day and revisited the page at least once (26th Jan). But only on 1st Feb did their website carry a request for help from portable antiquity collectors in tracing any coins that may appear on the market ("Appeal for information on theft of Anglo-Saxon coins"). The PAS website should, surely, be "UK portable antiquity central", but once again we see it dragging along behind all the rest. Not terribly satisfying for something in which the British public has already invested over thirteen million quid in, is it?

Maybe they need a guest blogger or two keeping the British public up to date with the ins and outs of the portable antiquity collecting debate and rounding out the somewhat one-sided picture of "finders" with metal detectors their webpage currently projects. Or maybe they just need an Education Officer (1970 UNESCO Convention Art 10[b]).

STOP Restarts: About Time Too!

.
A British Heritage organization is taking up the call which shirking British archaeologists shrank away from nearly two decades ago. They have started up "A NEW “Stop Taking Our Past” campaign – this time with universal support!". The “Stop Taking Our Past” (STOP) heritage Campaign of the 1970s failed to align British laws with those in the rest of the world which curb unstructured artefact hunting.

Hence anyone in England and Wales can still legally dig up and keep almost anything and tell no-one – and thousands do. It’s hard to see the status quo changing soon as it’s supported on three massive pillars: inertia, reluctance to admit Britain’s mistake and defence of vested interests. The first two have weakened in recent years but the third grows ever more blatant.

Despite the pat-on-the-head PAS approach, "the damage that prompted the original STOP campaign continues unabated. Most finds still go unreported and our past is still being taken". Nobody can therefore deny that for as long as Britain chooses not to regulate the activity a NEW “Stop Taking Our Past” campaign is needed. HA argues that no archaeologist could fail to support it if this time it calls not for an end to detecting but an end to non-reporting.

We will see if their optimism is justified. I'd suggest they email a link to the campaign announcement to the fifty or so PAS employees and the Bloomsbury head office and ask the Scheme whether or not it will promote the campaign.

PAS and the "Shafting" of the Archaeologists

.
Unable to answer the question about his views on disturbing battlefield archaeology by metal detecting, and the difference between artefact hunting and artefact hunting, US artefact hunter Dick Stout has decided to rely on his "bosom buddy from across the pond" (John Howland) to answer for him: "Note there will be nothing further to post on this subject. I hate wasting time, pissing in the wind, and talking with idiots". Well, I hope those following the debate about artefact hunting with metal detectors in the US note that Howland's ad personam "answer" does not really do much to address the concerns I raised either.

A little below that text Stout's protégé Howland also committed this text to print:

The word coming from inside academia’s US ivory towers according to one well-placed source is that a minority of radical and/or politically motivated archaeologists and historians have formed themselves into a loose confederation [ha! A Conspiracy! PMB] to monitor ALL aspects of the US media to search out features, programmes, and articles that portray the metal detecting/treasure hunting hobby in a favourable light. [...] Once a favourable piece is found, it’s a case of all hands to the bullshit pump in a concerted ‘highbrow’ hand-wringing propaganda effort with more than a little disinformation thrown in for good measure.

(Very John Hooker, no?) He reckons this is proof that what he calls "the war to outlaw the hobby" "is all but lost".

All of the foregoing is a mirror image of what occurred in the UK over thirty years ago. We in the UK shafted them royally, and now US hobbyists can do the same. You have the individuals well capable of destroying the archaeological propaganda machine and with guys of the calibre of Harold Lowenfels (Task Force for Metal Detecting Rights) and dare I say it, (yes, I will) Dick Stout. I see a great future for the US treasure hobby; collecting; and the buying and selling of legally found antiquities.

That's what it's all about, the legalisation of the buying and selling of dug up bits of history?
Howland reckons the US is currently

 "not far from a US-wide antiquities arrangement modelled on the UK’s brilliantly successful Portable Antiquities Scheme where thousands of artefacts are reported and recorded every week as more and more people flock into our hobby". 

He remarks:

Odd isn’t it, how the radicals are fighting to resist its implementation. Why?

Well, count me out. For wanting to protect the archaeological record from plunder as a mere source of collectables I have oft times been called a "radical" by those who know no better. As can be seen in repeated posts here I am all for discussions aiming to lead to an introduction of a Portable Antiquities Scheme in the USA, but no pale shadow of the UK one, a fully blown, singing-and-dancing PAS every bit as effective at getting as many public-found artefacts recorded a year as in the UK.

So Mr Stout might, instead of moaning about what public parks are closed to artefact digging, or reminiscing about the "good old days" when he had hair, consider concentrating on looking forward and on getting folk behind this idea. Instead of dodging discussion he could be justifying a budget expenditure of, at a conservative estimate, some 60 million dollars a year to set one up and run it. He and his fellows should join forces with another US-based "collectors' rights" organization, the Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild ("Preserving our freedom to collect") which has long advocated the setting up of PAS-clones in other countries, and obviously would be interested in one being set up in the States as a priority in this programme of cultural property leadership.

So the setting up of the PAS in the UK is according to UK detectorist Howland an expression of British archaeology getting - as he put it - "shafted"? Well, thank you Roger Bland! Howland is not the first to point out that instead of the expected instilling of conservation-aware "best practice" across the board as was the original intent of this dotty social experiment, all the PAS is achieving is encouraging more and more people to go out and buy metal detectors and come "flocking to the hobby of artefact hunting, and see nothing wrong with hoiking out anything that takes a collector's fancy - with all that means for the preservation of what is left of the archaeological record.

"Kent Understand" the PAS in Kentucky

.
In a Jan 13th post on the Dick Stout anti-preservationist blog, we find a copy of a letter sent by Kentucky metal detector using artefact hunter Harold S. Lowenfels to US Senator Dan Seum (R). ("My family and I wish to thank you for advocating for those who enjoy recreational metal detecting, by sponsoring the bill, shortly to be voted on, that would open up state parks to this healthy and wholesome activity [...] I can't tell you how many quality family hours we spent together combing the great outdoors and discovering what those that came before us had left behind"). The usual claptrap, artefacts do not occur in any sort of pattern near the surface of the ground, they fell from the sky and were not deposited by any understandable human activity in the past (nay, this is "bogus information"). The Lowenfels family only searches and takes artefacts from "secondary and tertiary sites", not "primary" ones. Furthermore, "nobody is better equipped to find metal artifacts than the metal detectorist, and unlike the state Archaeologists, the detectorist does not cost the taxpayer one penny" - as if "finding metal artefacts" as a form of preservation of archaeological sites was all that State Archaeologists do.

If not threatened with exclusion from secondary and tertiary sites, the detectorist would be more than happy to partner with and cooperate with the Archaeologists. The prudent way to proceed would be to model a metal detecting policy after what has worked so well in Great Britain. Approximately 90% of the metal artifacts in British Museums have been discovered by metal detectorists. The finder, turns in the discovered artifact, where it is evaluated for it's uniqueness, and relevant information regarding its discovery is obtained. The artifact is then either returned to the finder, or purchased by the government for display. Fair market value is given if the artifact is purchased. This is a win/win situation.

Britain has no "policy" on metal detecting, it has an ad hoc resolution set up as the only way the Brits can think of for dealing with the absolutely crap legislation they in effect inherited from Victorian landowner lawmakers. It is not a (ugh) "win-win situation". the only people winning are the artefact hcollectors, the archaeological record is being trashed, eroded and lost at an alarming rate with MINIMAL mitigation. It is not "working so well", it is failing to cope with both the scale and the nature of the problem. Mr Lowenfels seems to think that every finder "turns in" ever recordable find. Nothing could be further from the truth, there is much that suggests that the PAS only sees a minority of the tens of thousands of pieces of archaeological evidence being taken from the fields of England (let along Wild West Wales). It's pretty extraordinary to read that "Approximately 90% of the metal artifacts in British Museums have been discovered by metal detectorists". Museums in Britain go back a long way before the (US was founded and) the metal detector was invented. The truth is that with the rise of metal detecting and the spread of private collecting this brought about, donations of archaeological artefacts to museums by members of the public have fallen drastically (I recommend for example reading the series of Colchester and Essex Museum's annual reports for an excellent demonstration of that mechanism in operation - where "donated by..." gives way to "purchased from..."). Evaluating a FIND "for it's (sic) uniqueness" is not at all what the PAS is about, I rather think Mr Lowenfels is confusing the PAS with the Treasure Valuation Committee. This impression is reinforced by the next bit: "The artifact is then either returned to the finder, or purchased by the government for display. Fair market value is given if the artifact is purchased". In legal terms, it should actually be returned to the landowner whose property it is. Treasure items are not "purchased by the government for display", they are purchased by museums, who have to raise the funds (often from public donations) to pay to avoid them ending up on the antiquities market.



So, here is Kentucky , shown at the same scale as PAS-land (minus the tip of Cornwall). They turn out to be land areas of the same sort of size. Obviously, then to set up a PAS in Kentucky to the same scale of effectiveness as in the UK, would need some 30-40 overworked FLOs as in England, and would need a minimum investment at the same level as in England and Wales (1.4 million GBP annually - that's approximately 2.15 million dollars annually). That's just for Kentucky(pop 4.3 million). Is that really a "prudent" way to approach the protection of the in situ remains of the historic heritage of the United States? Who is going to vote for that?

Raimund Karl and the "Graue Schafe"

.
Nigel Swift drew my attention to the old thread on the HAPPAH forum about a conference held on 1st September 2011 in Mauerbach, Austria. This was called: ""Graue Schafe" – zur fachlichen Relevanz unautorisiert geborgener (Prospektions-) Funde". Hmmm "salvaged? Prospection? finds - artefact hunting and collecting they mean. I do not know if a publication is planned (or has appeared) of the proceedings, it would be interesting to know.

According to a report sent by a contributor (5th September 2011) who had been present, there were some 40 archaeologists and others from Austria and Germany present and a lot of discussion about the "black" and "grey" sheep (artefact hunters) and how to classify them into different groups. In contrast to the picture presented by Raimund Karl in a recent paper, it appears that at this meeting several cases of collaboration between users of metal detectors and Austrian archaeologists (especially in the Tyrol and Styria) were presented, and mention was made of attempts in Austria (Tyrol) to contact and "educate" detector users. Some detectorists in Austria are reported to bring their finds to archaeologists with the GPS coordinates of the place of discovery and the material analyzed and important pieces are sent to museums. In Styria, archaeologists have sought to channel the detector users by defining a search area where they can explore, and the finds are then analysed by archaeologists.

The local police on the other hand were found not to be treating looting of the archaeological heritage at all seriuously, and the need for more training of law enforcement officers was discussed (it was also mentioned that two policemen in the area of ​​"Upper Austria" were known to be users of detectors themselves). Mention was made of public participation in protection of sites from looting, such as a local association that watches over a site at Braunberg (an important Celtic oppidum, the subject of several publications), the local police make daily rounds on the hill and a local association was set up to denounce anyone seen with a detector at the site, noting car number plates and calling the police. Several speakers spoke in favour of a tougher law on illegal artefact hunting in Austria (imprisonment as in Turkey).

Interestingly:

Le dernier intervenant était un autrichien enseignant aux pays de Galles qui a défendu la loi anglaise à l'aide de graphiques montrant que l'année dernière environ 47000 sites de trouvaille avaient été signalés par des utilisateurs de détecteurs contre 5000 en Autriche (où la loi est plus ou moins la même qu'en France). Il a défendu la thèse selon laquelle l'archéologie n'appartenait pas qu'aux archéologues. Son intervention s’est fini par un débat assez houleux...

Sadly we are not informed about the directions and results of that "debate". Well, no-questions-asked dug up antiquity collectors and British archaeologists may be swayed by PAS-driven arguments. The French at least have a rather more informed take on affairs. As HAPPAH forum member "Archéologue en Colère" remarked:

Ah il a eu de la chance de ne pas m'avoir eu en face de lui l'animal (je crois bien savoir qui c'est en plus...)!!

47000 est le nombre de découvertes déclarées or la majorité de ces découvertes a été faite sur des sites archéologiques déjà connus et publiés (information non chiffrable car le PAS se refuse à la donner, évidemment!). Comme seuls les sites classés sont protégés (18300), les autres sont librement utilisés par les détecteux pour récolter légalement ce qu'ils veulent. De très nombreuses cartes archéologiques sont diffusées dans le milieu détecteux anglo-gallois, ils ne s'en cachent même pas!

Nous savons aussi qu'il y a très peu de fouilles faites à la suite des déclarations de trésors, l'immense majorité des trésors ne sont pas suivis d'une fouille par des gens compétents... alors l'avancée de la connaissance des sites archéologiques grâce aux détecteux...

Si c'est le chiffre de 47000 déclarations qui est mis en avant, le killer argument reste tout de même qu'on trouve nettement plus d'artéfacts sur un "site archéologique" qu'en dehors... si on ne veut pas comparer des choux et des carottes il faut prendre en compte ce biais incontournable! Dénombrons seulement le nombre de fragments de poteries sur un atelier de potier ou d'éclats de silex dans un site de débitage et les 47 000 déclarations deviennent subitement ridicules.

The same writer then found (Jan 10th 2012) Karl's published article. It seems he has the same opinion of it as the present writer:

Voici un article de ce Raimund Karl, on y retrouve exactement les mêmes débilités d'un Délestrée (les détecteux sont des archéologues amateurs), d'un Bland (de gros chiffres de déclaration c'est bien) ou d'un Feugère (il faut alimenter les bases de données). Avec en plus quelques originalités...

'Nuff said I think. No-questions-asked dug up antiquity collectors and British archaeologists may be swayed by such arguments...

Logic Never Was their Strong Point

.
Antiquities dealers' paid lobbyist Peter Tompa seems only now to have noticed Raimund Karl's text "http://www.ngoe.at/publikationen/HEN_Karl.pdf">On the Highway to Hell: Thoughts on the Unintended Consequences for Portable Antiquities of Section 11 (1) Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz". He does not indicate what drew his attention to it.

He notes that Karl "concludes that a change in Austrian law has led metal detectorists to stop reporting finds they would otherwise report" before adding a comment of his own:

After reading his article, one might conclude that Professor Karl seems to be blessed with common sense that has detoured him away from the "highway to hell" that has been taken by some of his more ideological colleagues in the archaeological community.

Yet, not so long ago Tompa was advocating, was he not, that in order to fight looting and illicit antiquities, instead of the dealers and collectors it was precisely "metal detectorists" that should be "regulated" (here for example, here too - where metal detecting is equated with lax control due to government "corruption"). This is what he was telling coineys to write to the CPAC too. So if Tompa now agrees with Professor Karl that this regulation of detectorists is in some way a "Highway to Hell", it seems to me that he should be staying by the original concept of cleaning up the antiquities market and encourage responsible and transparent collecting. What is "ideological" in that?

It seems to me however that to get his pay cheque from the dealers' associations, writing what is internally logical is not a requirement, the idea is apparently to write just any old stuff to keep the dealers' clients from asking too many questions of the dealers. Create a fog-screen, and for that purpose the more confusing his own position is, the better. After all, the intention is not to engage in debate and dialogue, but avoid that at all costs.

As for getting information from those in a given country who are carrying out an activity illegally, I rather think that is a matter for the police.

Professor Karl, The PAS and the Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz (II): Preservation of the Archaeological Record

.

A fundamental problem of Professor Raimund Karl’s "On the Highway to Hell: Thoughts on the Unintended Consequences for Portable Antiquities of § 11(1) Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz" is the manner in which it defines the issue of preservation of the “archaeological heritage”. I assume that it is only unintentional that it is presented solely as a matter of making sure that finds (individual objects) are treated in a certain way. One can search the text in vain for any indications hinting that the scope of archaeological protection is much wider than that. Thus it is that the law which (in the view of the author) prevents loose finds being reported are “useless” (p. 124) for preservation of the archaeological heritage, whatever else they achieve. I find this attitude extremely puzzling and can only put it down to a surfeit of contact with the views of collectors like John Hooker and Peter Tompa and supporters of the PAS. It is quite thought provoking when one of the few articles to emerge from a British university on this topic differs not an iota from the ideas about “preservation” expressed on the “Cultural property Observer” blog of the paid lobbyist of the international dugup antiquities dealers, suggesting how deep the effects of British archaeological “partnership” with collectors extends.

It is my opinion that the recording of finds made by members of the public is of importance, but certainly, despite the impression created by Raimund Karl’s text, the complexities of the issues of preservation of archaeological information for use for various purposes now and by future generations go FAR beyond this single issue.

Karl goes on to say - as Gabriel Moshenska in London - that "it does not matter" (p. 115):

And who are we kidding? Let us not fall for an archaeological fantasy: a find which has already been made, which has already been dug up, can no longer be protected from its removal from its subsoil context, whether that removal is legal or not. From the point of view of scholarship or heritage management, once it has been removed it is entirely irrelevant whether it would have been better not removed; whatever damage its removal may have caused, it has been done and cannot be reversed, however much we would like that.

Well, from the point of "heritage management" (which it seems Professor Karl TEACHES over in Wales, this seems a very odd Unitedkingdomian understanding of the idea of "heritage management") it certainly is NOT "irrelevant" whether or not random collectable items should be being removed from archaeological assemblages. Archaeological sites have more in them - both physically and metaphorically - than a few collectable brooches and other geegaws, don't they? Protecting the archaeological record means protecting the archaeological record, not merely collecting up fragments of the information when destruction has not been prevented.

So here we have the UK "better than nothing" model of heritage protection; this says in effect, its too difficult for us to actually do anything to reduce the problem, let alone tackle it head on, but we can try and paper over the cracks by smiling and putting a brave face on the failure. Maybe nobody will notice.

Karl goes on about his fibulae hoovered-up and hoiked out of archaeological assemblages:

what certainly is not irrelevant in such circumstances is whether we learn of the existence of a find or not. If we do, it remains available to scholarship, even if perhaps with somewhat reduced potential for gaining scholarly knowledge from it. If we do not, however, we lose not just the information that we could have learnt from its context (from both the finder and an investigation of the find’s spot), but also whatever information remains in the find itself. It is as if the object had never been made, deposited and excavated. And that cannot be desirable.

Again artefactocentrism, it is the information about the artefact which for Karl is "somewhat reduced" rather than the context of discovery which is lost.

What is desirable is to stop people hoiking them out willy nilly in the first place, just the same as stopping developers bulldoze a site to make a skatepark without mitigation, stopping gravel quarries quarrying them away without record, or toxic waste dumpers making it into a storage area for chemical slurry with no record of what is underneath. Anything else is not "management", it is shoulder-shrugging. Isn't it?

Like Moshenska, Karl reportedly thinks that the views of "extremists" like me should be ignored. The PAS ignores these questions too, very convenient of course, but the questions are fundamental ones about the nature of the archaeological record and about archaeology itself. They will not go away.

Vignette: not about artefacts, but their assemblages and spatial patterns and relationships with pother evidence - the Corona site.
.