Professor Karl, The PAS and the Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz (I): Introduction

.
Professor Raimund Karl of Bangor University has published an article in 'The Historic Environment, Vol. 2 No. 2, October, 2011, 111–33 called "On the Highway to Hell: Thoughts on the Unintended Consequences for Portable Antiquities of § 11(1) Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz" which certainly seems to have set the cat among the pigeons. It has received notice in British Archaeology magazine, on Tom King's blog as well as Derek Fincham's. It has apparently figured also on coiney forums and thence, recommended as an approach by dealers' lobbyist Peter Tompa (as I showed in earlier posts on the topic) played a major part in public submissions to the CPAC over the renewal of the Cyprus MOU.

Professor Karl argues among other things that Austria's system of licenses for archaeological fieldwork has had unintended consequences:

"the number of finds reported by members of the public has declined dramatically".

(He makes another point [pp 127-8] that "conditions issued by the Bundesdenkmalamt on excavation licenses only affect archaeologists, who have no means to fullfil them, rather than owners of finds and documentation, who would have", which I do not intend discussing here as the disposal of the project archive is a separate issue). Both of these situations he suggests though having good intentions behind them

"turn out to be the pavement (sic) for a highway to archaeological heritage hell".

Both Dr Karl’s text and my own are a lot of words, so to summarise down to the bare minimum. Karl’s “road to heritage hell” basically consists of the fact that artefact hunters cannot get permits to hoik artefacts out of the ground legally, so they are reduced to doing it illegally. Not surprisingly they are not reporting their own illegal activities, but in Britain where there are no such constraints, lots of finds are known from these activities. That's basically it.

The Bangor Professor's text has been seized upon by no-questions-asked artefact collectors who then use his conclusions, taken out of context, as an excuse for opposing measures intended to clean up the international antiquities trade. They argue in effect that since Karl has shown in this paper that the issue of excavation permits “drives artefact hunting underground” and in countries which allow looting (like England and Wales with its voluntary Plundered Artefacts Recording Scheme), it is openly carried out, they do not see why they should not buy looted and smuggled artefacts. In addition, their line of reasoning reveals that they do not see the difference between the PAS-type recording system and the issue of export permits (in reality the PAS is absolutely unrelated to the export permit system of the UK).

Dr Karl himself seems to have remained aloof from these wider discussions, restricting himself to pointing out, in comments to my own initial text on a summary of his views published in the magazine British Archaeology, that I am “wrong”. Nobody else seems in a hurry to discuss the paper and its implications. Derek Fincham moans:

“I thought about posting a longer response and discussion, but sadly I've given up hope that the heritage advocacy sites on the interwebs (sic) can offer any useful forum for discussion”.

Well, that may be, but that is no reason to ignore the issues raised and not to attempt to discuss them openly from different points of view. I gave an initial reaction at the beginning of December, and have twice sat down to try and address the paper more fully and twice been sidetracked by other considerations. Time has come to set aside enough time to do it justice and grasp the nettle.

Dr Karl’s text, while at first sight seeming straightforward is written from a certain viewpoint. That viewpoint when looked at in detail differs fundamentally from my own, so in order to address it properly, those differences have to be explained. So the length of the text has suffered, which is why it has to be split into several parts (which I will post in reverse order so they can be read from top-down rather than bottom up). They are still too long, but I have no time to shorten them.

Let us be clear, Professor Karl was writing about the situation in Austria. My interest in it is about what he writes about (and deduces from) his notion of what is happening in England, Wales and (to a lesser degree) Scotland. In this discussion, I will also ignore the aspect of the transatlantic collectors’ claptrap about the use of Karl’s conclusions in the opposing of US legislation on lawful imports and exports of antiquities. Simply put, the situation discussed by Karl cannot be used in the simplistic manner which they do. As I mentioned above, I will also not discuss here the question he raises [pp 127-8] in his attack on “Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz § 11(1)", of the disposal of project archives.

First of all, I must begin by stating that I would be very surprised to find a country which has an antiquities/heritage protection law which was anything like adequate to the task, let alone perfect. When I worked in the Ministry of Culture here I was involved in a minor way with the drafting of (a previous version) of the current law here in Poland, and while we have one of the strongest laws in Europe (and what was eventually passed by those who came after us diverges quite markedly from we had wanted), it still does not work. Having sat through some of the meetings with various interest groups (and in my case this also included metal detectorists) and state employed cultural property lawyers, I can see why these situations not only arise but are unavoidable, quite a thought-provoking experience. The Austrian system is very much like the Polish one (with one very significant difference which I'll mention at the end) and I can sympathise both with those who wrote it, and with Professor Karl's frustrations.

Professor Karl concludes [p. 124] rather dramatically:

if ever a law written with the best of intentions has backfired spectacularly, this must be it. Rather than achieving what it set out to, rather than offering the best possible protection for the archaeological heritage, it has achieved the precise opposite: it does not prevent members of the public searching for archaeological finds, but it is exceptionally successful in preventing members of the public from reporting them, and from collaborating with the archaeologists who essentially need exactly the information that people are in practice forced to conceal by a useless law.

I think we should differentiate more clearly than Karl has done in his paper between the underlying principles and the effects of individual elements of a law on certain interest groups.

It is not my intent to explore, still less defend, the Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz, but it strikes me that the case for it being “useless” has been vastly overstated in his text on the basis that it prevents artefact hunters hunting for collectables in Austria’s archaeological record which is a fragile and finite resource just the same as it is everywhere else. The question of whether this artefact hunting is desirable or not is swept aside by the paper's author by the uncritical application of the same glib non-arguments that we see in the British Portable Antiquities non-debate. Here we see the PAS’ own current lack (out of self-interest and probably apathy) of deeper reflection and discussion on some of these aspects is continuing to have a damaging effect which goes far beyond its local context. This is my main interest in Professor Karl's recent paper.
.

Detecting Under the Microscope 13: Finds or Portable Antiquities? What is Being Thrown Away?

.
Those nasty "detractors" of the depletion of the archaeological record by unregulated artefact hunting are accused by John Winter of making up stories of the rate of erosion. After thirteen years of public funded (costing at least thirteen million quid) liaison and partnership, one might thought the Portable Antiquities Scheme might have provided some proper figures on the basis of which the effects of this activity on the archaeological record could be reliably assessed. Of course the Bloomsbury Good Old Boys have done no such thing. However an attempt is at last being made to rectify this omission by Katherine Robbins at Southampton University, who has initiated a survey among "metal detectorists" to try and find out just what it is they get up to in the fields. Question seven of this survey, if the tekkies answer it honestly, seems likely to provide a measure of the veracity of the Heritage Action Erosion Counter algorithm...

7.) On average, how many pre 1700AD finds do you collect each time you go out?

	1-2
	3-4
	5-6
	7-8
	9-10
	11+

Or does it? What does an archaeologist consider a "find" and what does an artefact collector? What would an archaeologist record from an investigated area, and what does a collector think worth stooping for? The imp[ortant fact that is so often ignored is that artefact collecting is not ersatz archaeology, it is something else entirely. Collecting costume Barbie dolls is not ethnography, still less ethnology.

Collectors accumulate "finds" very selectively (but at the same time randomly). What they take from the fields has no relation to what was there in the first place. The aim of artefact collecting is not to make a collection which is a representative sample of an assemblage, but is a selection of collectables from that assemblage.

To take an example, if we search the PAS database (today 470,264 records) for "key" we find 1673 Roman to post-medieval examples. If we look for lock mechanism, we find nine items. There are very few examples of the collection of any part of the mechanism that articulated within the lock with them. If we look for "lock" we get 199 hits, but most of them are knobs all for some reason interpreted as from Roman "lock pins" (though other interpretations are possible) and cast copper alloy slide bolts from Roman padlocks. Yet locks in which a key is turned each have a number of moving parts, precision made, differentially tempered. Just those bits of metal are not as "collectable" as a key. Here's one mechanism for example:
Which of these pieces would join the average metal detectorist's collection? How many of them would thence turn up on a FLO's desk? What is happening in the fields is the equivalent pieces of the ancient locks to which those keys fitted are simply being dug out of their place in the archaeological record and being discarded by collectors. The information they contain about lock typology, development, manufacturing techniques is simply being lost because artefact hunters are not doing archaeology, but looking for geegaws to collect (or sell). Lock mechanism fragments most frequently end up in the scrap bucket and not in anyone's collection, still less on anyone's database.


Another example are tools. Many of the metal objects "metal detectorists" collect and sell are decorated with inscribed lines or 'chip carving' or zig-zag (rocker) tracer lines. The tools that made these marks would be small iron spikes with a tempered steel (or at worst work-hardened) and sharpened ends. This type of decoration is very common. How many of the tools that made it have been found by metal detectorists? Interestingly there is not even a category "tracer" in the PAS keywords list. Perhaps they'd go under 'burins' (a steel burin could be used for woodworking, and leather working - making the stitch holes in shoes for example) so there should be a lot of tracers and burins resulting from 10000 tekkies searching "productive" sites up and down the country. A search of the PAS database reveals 32 - all of flint - have been collected and reported. Many Roman metal objects have traces on them of having been finished with 'needle file' like tools - where are they in the PAS database? The saws used to cut the teeth of the bone combs on Roman and post-Roman sites? The list of things that are not being collected by artefact hunters is a long one. Typing "waste" gets some metalworking waste (mostly lead) but 91 fragments is surely no guide whatsoever to either the quantities of metalworking waste in the post-Roman archaeological sites of Britain. After all, the 400 000 metal detected objects on the database had to be made some time somewhere. Artefact hunters might pick up the odd piece from time to time as a curiosity, but generally not information. Most of the evidence for post-Roman (or earlier even) metal working dug up from archaeological assemblages by metal detectorists probably goes in the scrap bucket.

Therefore artefact hunters could be taking from the archaeological many more "pre 1700AD finds" than will register in their conscience as something that may be archaeological evidence that may be reportable to the PAS. The answer they give to Robbins' question 7 will therefore reflect that perception. I suspect also the individuals answering the questionnaire will include an unknown number deliberately trying to create "statistics' which prove the "detractors" wrong and it is unclear how Ms Robbins intends analysing the results she gets to filter out this effect. Still, it will be interesting to see what answer they give.

John Winter on the "Detractors of Metal Detecting"

.
"Metal detectorist" John Winter has just posted up on his blog an essay called 'Metal Detecting – The Hobby and its Detractors'. Veteran tekkie-watchers will have seen it before, it was published in 2005 on the UK Detector Finds Database (originally under the title: "Lies, Damn Lies and the Hobby's Detractors", later changed to the more neutral "Metal Detecting - The Hobby and its Detractors"). The text seems unchanged.

A reader has spotted it and asked for some comments here. Winter suggests that metal detecting is not "depleting the archaeological pool and resulting in the loss of contextual information" because it is fun and a source of valuable information, and "rescues artefacts from hostile environments that threaten their rapid destruction". He also denies that "detectorists are reluctant to record their finds" and that people hunt for artefacts for "financial gain".

1) He says the archaeological record is not in any way being depleted by the taking of objects out of it week after week, month after month, year after year over the past four decades. Unfortunately he does not expand on this rather odd vision of how you can take and take something from a finite non-renewable resource and still have as much afterwards as you did before. Still, you did not expect a tekkie to actually answer that did you?

Instead of bothering about the depletion of the record he draws attention to the PAS "wottalottastuff" model, by hoiking it out of the archaeological record we have a "lottastuff' to gawp at. The loss of the contextual evidence from and for the sites they came from preserved as a resource is a problem below his radar.

The emotive phrase, ‘depleting the archaeological [resource]’, is therefore entirely misleading, because it implies a net loss to our knowledge, as opposed to a net gain.

Well, obviously the holes dug in the archaeological record of sites in Mali do not matter, what is important is there are lots and lots of nice dugup pottery figures to gawp at and collect.

2) Then Winter trundles out the "while they remain in the ground they are exposed to a very severe risk of destruction" argument. On this basis he asserts:

"the reality of the situation is far better expressed, if the negative and propagandist, ‘depleting the archaeological [resource]’, is replaced with the more meaningful, ‘rescuing our material heritage’.

Note that this argument denies that archaeological sites and monuments and the information they contain about the past are in any way part of the national heritage. The "arteefact hunting as rescue" argument is a parallel to that used by commercial salvage companies to trash historical shipwrecks for the saleable goodies they contain. This argument is trotted out regularly, each time only with anecdotal information, or appeals to "common sense" as a support. The truth of the matter is when you sit down and analyse the argument in the light of its general applicability, it simply falls to pieces. Nigel Swift and I have done such a dissection, with a full literature search and its a whole chapter of our book about "Britain's Portable Antiquities Heritage". At the end of the chapter we conclude that though there are individual cases and situations when such destruction is occurring, this argument is a false one when applied as a generalisation to justify wholesale and hastily hoiking archaeological evidence out of the ground through metal detecting. You'll have to buy the book to read why we do not agree with Mr Winter and all the rest who try to pull this argument into the debate on artefact hunting and collecting.

Winter shows some coins - compare them with what you see on the PAS database, the UKDFD and eBay to see how typical they actually are of what artefact hunters are finding on a daily basis in the fields of England. Mr Winter needs to show bucket loads of coins in such a condition to even begin to make a case. Let's see a bucketload of 1970s 2p pieces corroded in such a manner - and not just surface green dust, to believe in chemical attack I want to see pitting of the original surface. Where is it? (Actually, to make it easier for him, Mr Winter can show me a bucketload of 50+-year old Victorian Edward VII and George V pennies with agrochemical-damage corrosion pitting if he wants. I bet he cannot)

3) Winter asks his reader:"what makes [a] brooch [accidentally discovered by a member of the public] any different to all the other brooches, coins and artefacts that are discovered [by a collector] with the aid of a metal detector?". I would say precisely that, an artefact accidentally discovered and reported is not depletion of the archaeological record on a scale anywhere near comparable to the wholesale stripping of metal artefacts (visible and still buried) from a site by a collector for entertainment and profit. These are two very different things (even though the PAS does its level best to mix the two up in the public consciousness and call it "doing archaeological outreach"). It is the deliberate and calculated removal of archaeological evidence from a site or assemblage which is part of the problem, the manner in which it biases the information recovered is another, and the scale and intent is the third. The fourth is that it is done for entirely selfish reasons. this is not at all the same as a dog-walker spotting a fibula by the edge of a footpath and taking it to the museum.

4) In the same way Winter enjoins us not to "blur the distinction between hobbyists and criminals that use metal detectors". But why? The metal detector is a tool used for a purpose, and that purpose (in the case we are interested in) is to take as many collectable archaeological artefacts out from under the soil's surface as possible. Whether for collection or sale, with or without the landowner's or Secretary of State's permission is immaterial to the depletion of the archaeological information the land where this was done. This is the problem, the effect on the archaeological record, not the precise legal setting in which it happens. The use of a metal detector for artefact hunting is the use of a metal detector for artefact hunting. This "we are not nighthawks" argument is a smokescreen when we are talking about the preservation and sustainable management of the archaeological research. Somebody tearing up the turf on the ancient Ridgeway in an offroad jaunt in a gas-guzzling roaring monster 4x4 is still churned up turf whether or not the driver of the vehicle has a licence, or has been drinking or not. The turf can be repaired, holes in the archaeological record never can.

5) Mr Winter says archaeologists "usually focus their attention on sites of intensive past human activity", he has obviously never heard of landscape archaeology or regional survey. He assumes then if artefact hunters strip artefacts (archaeological evidence) from areas which are between "sites of intensive past human activity" it somehow does not matter. He enjoins us not to "blur the distinction between archaeological sites and land that has no known archaeological significance". What are the characteristic features of this anything-goes "land which has no archaeological significance" (yet contains enough artefacts to be considered "productive" to an artefact hunter)? In the same way as 'seeding' areas for 'finders' to have something to "find" does, emptying an area of a landscape which contained artefacts in a pattern of deposition of some or all of those artefacts is indeed altering the pattern of evidence. Unless the reporting and recording are done to the highest standards, evidence is not only being lost, but a false picture is being created. Try, however, and find even three words on the PAS website about any of that, and you'll be looking in vain. The most the general public will learn about archaeological aims and methods as far as portable antiquities goes is Ladybird-book level and barely coherent fluff. Where IS this archaeological outreach if after a decade and a half even the brighter metal detectorists are just not getting the picture from the PAS?

Mr Winter also has no idea about how archaeologists can gain information from the archaeological evidence which ploughsoil contains. He assumes there is no information content in ploughsoil, which simply shows his ignorance of over forty years' accumulation of archaelogical literature on that subject. Again should not the PAS be "outreaching" with precisely that information for "metal detectorists" because as Winter points out: "The vast majority of land searched by metal detectorists is cultivated agricultural land, and the objects recovered are from the ploughsoil"? Winter is 100% wrong when he says that the precise position of the objects in the plough soil vis a vis each other and other features (such as linear cropmarks) "are very unlikely to have any significance". Like the collection of evidence at a crime scene, in order for that significance to be determined, however, one has first to collect and document the data, not ignore the need to record anything on the assumption that the pattern has "no significance". Certainly the precise position in a field something came from has no significance for a collector of dugup bric a brac, but it is a different matter if those items are to be treated as part of a pattern of archaeological evidence. This is the problem, artefact hunters are not archaeologists, they are not "doing archaeology", they are hoiking things out to collect (and/or sell), and even if they trot along to meet the PAS with an x-marks-the-spot for a handful of the items they hoik, that is not even ersatz-archaeology and it is debatable how useful is the "information" that we get as a byproduct of this collecting activity.

6) Mr Winter simply denies that there is any evidence that there are substantial numbers of metal artefacts being removed from the archaeological record that are not being reported or recorded. He alleges:

The hobby’s detractors are not concerned with considering relevant facts or evidence; they are concerned only with achieving their objective of seeing the introduction of legislation to restrict the hobby. Accordingly, they fabricate ludicrous statistics to support their aims and mislead those, particularly legislators, who are not conversant with the facts. Nowhere is this more apparent than in their claims regarding the numbers of ‘recordable finds’ made by detectorists.

Hmm, ignoring for a moment the "Fortress Detecting" overtones, after spending thirteen million pounds on a liaising "partnership" with artefact hunters over coming up to a decade and a half, one might expect that Mr Winter (and myself) would have access to an official (and verifiable) presentation of those facts and statistics. The fact is that we do not. We know how many objects are recorded, we are not told anything at all substantial about how many it is estimated are not. Heritage Action has made its own estimate of the number of PAS-recordable items being taken out of the archaeological record of England and Wales and just disappearing without record into scattered ephemeral personal collections. It would suit Mr Winter's case to call this model "ludicrous" no doubt. But by how much would it have to be WRONG to make the situation acceptable? But is it at all wrong? It is in fact a rather conservative estimate. In just the last couple of days we have heard comments by a metal detectorist (from Wales, so not an artefact rich area like Norfolk) about the poor show of recording his fellow detectorists have made when he has been out and found (and reported) 190 recordable artefacts in the first ten months of 2011 alone. Even if the average (statistical) tekkie (like Mr Winter himself perhaps) has an achievement just one sixth of that a year, that is well within the scope of the HA counter's algorithm. Is "Chef Geoff" in the Polden Hills an exceptionally good, or lucky, detectorist? How exceptional? Several of his fellows on the "Detecting Wales" forum are announcing they are annually finding many more objects each than is being reported to PAS by individual detectorists. The same goes for finds made per person per hour on rallies where proper records have been created. There was a survey done by members of a UK detecting forum who all recorded precisely what they found in a three hour detecting session (the results seem - sadly but perhaps predictably given their implications - to have been deleted from the web). The initiators wanted to show how much 'junk" was found, but in the process showed that the number of PAS-recordable artefacts recovered alongside that was well within the HA counter range. In fact, the problem is these are not "ludicrous" made-up statistics, they are pieces of information recorded in black and white on the detectorists' own forums and they all point to the fact that the HA counter is an entirely believable model of the shocking rate of unmitigated erosion of the archaeological record of England and Wales through artefact hunting.

7) Finally Winter alleges:

Nothing highlights the ignorance of the hobby’s detractors more than their assertion that detectorists are motivated by financial gain.

It is not "ignorance" to point out that bulk lots of "Roman grots" are sold, not given away on eBay, artefacts too. The two main UK "metal detecting" magazines (The Searcher and Treasure Hunting) both have "what's my find worth" sections (NB: Polish metal detecting magazines do not). It is worth noting the rather high values even totally mundane artefacts can be sold for if the finder does not want them for their collection. We have seen that detectorists have a nice little earner selling publication rights of photos of "their" finds, apparently this can be many times the sale value of the artefacts themselves. How can it be said that detectorists demanding that sort of money for a mere small format digital photo (in the case drawn to my attention even without a scale or label) are not motivated by financial gain? The overall cash value of a garden shed-full of ancient artefacts (most of which are surrendered by farmers who may not be fully aware of their true market value) could reach a considerable sum - either realised by the finder or his heirs. The precise values assigned a Treasure find by the Treasure valuation Committee is a constant topic of conversation (ie criticism) on UK metal detecting forums - usually that this or that detectorist feels he was "ripped off" because he's not getting as much dosh as he wants for handing the stuff over (as the law dictates) . Certainly it would be wrong to say - and I do not know any "detractor" who would say - that all "detectorists" are wholly motivated by the cash they can make by selling artefacts (and the non-collectable artefacts they get rid of by the bucket-load), but they are certainly not oblivious - or averse - to it. Also it stands to reason that many people coming into the hobby today are doing so because of the get-rich-quick-by-plundering-the-nation's-heritage stories that fill the newspapers every time the PAS announces a new Treasure find. With 800 a year now being found and reported and (let's say) 8000 detectorists in England and Wales, it is obvious that statistically in 20 years of regular artefact hunting, most active detector users are likely to find two Treasure hoards apiece. Certainly the odds of making money - potentially big money- from metal detecting are considerably greater than doing the National Lottery. I bet there are not too many "metal detectorists" in England and Wales that can work that out on their fingers.

And how many landowners actually see anything like "50%" (even) of the total monetary worth of the finds removed from their land and (whether or not it is sold now or later) added to somebody's collection? A shedful of coins and artefacts could potentially be worth tens of thousands, and many of the tekkies just shelled out for the batteries for their machine.

8) Mr Winter then concludes:

In summary, the portrayal of metal detecting by its detractors is one that few informed people, inside or outside the hobby, would recognise.

Actually it more true to say that it is a picture to which supporters of the British policies on artefact hunting and collecting will not admit.

My own conclusion considers something he said earlier. Mr Winter alleges that the "detractors of metal detecting" he has set out to challenge are concerned only with achieving their alleged objective of seeing the introduction of legislation to restrict the hobby. It is to this alleged "aim" that Mr Winter accuses them of deliberately or through "ignorance" of harnessing what Winter represents as false arguments. A question he sidesteps is why these "detractors" want the regulation/restriction of this hobby. Is it because they are just nasty control freaks? Or is it that they see the effects of artefact hunting (the ones Winter wants to present as "false arguments") as extremely worrying and that is the motivation for wanting to see some kind of resource-protecting change? The starting point of Mr Winter's discussion is that the "detractors" are control freaks out to trample his hobby. The starting point of mine is that Winter has failed to see where this discussion has its origin and what it is about. Taking the holistic preservation of the information value contained in the sites and assemblages exploited as a source of collectables (an "artefact mine") sites and not loose collectable artefacts as the starting point, places an entirely different perspective on the issue. Collectors like Mr Winter steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this and the longterm effects of their activity on this finite and fragile - and vanishing - resource.

Vignette: The damaged turf is - to some extent - repairable, the damaged archaeological record is not.
.

Detecting Under the Microscope 12: A report on the Bishop Burton Rally

.
A while back I discussed the statements published in national newspapers which gave the public the impression that PAS finds advisor Dr Kevin Leahy, FSA, MIfA National Adviser supported the Bishop's Burton (East Yorkshire) commercial artefact hunting "festival" , 23 – 25 September, 2011 and suggested that the public were not being given a very accurate picture of archaeological method and thinking on such issues by this type of PAS "outreach".

Over on the Federation of Independent Detectorists website there is copied and pasted a report written 27/09/11 by the same Kevin Leahy on the rally (currently second article down). This sounds grim. There were 400 "detectorists" spread over a massive area ("with 59 large fields being fully, or partially, open"). PAS presence was patchy, 12 man days in all including 4 of them by non-PAS volunteers, leahy describes the experience as "three fraught days".

We were made welcome by the organisers, the detectorists and the landowner but some mention was made of the problems involved in setting up this rally with regards to Natural England. As I was not privy to these matters no comment was made.

Maps were available and were "invaluable"

Field[s] were numbered and detectorists were asked to tell us in which quarter of the field finds had been made. During the course of the rally 220 finds were reported by 118 of the detectorists. This was not impressive considering the number of people involved but it is likely that the very size of the area available weighed against recording: the long trip back to the base would have taken up valuable detecting time. This rally covered too large an area.

Without maps it would have been impossible to do any recording under these circumstances, but frankly "which quarter of the field" something was in is no useful record at all of find distribution patterns. Three days detecting by 400 people should be producing more than 0.18 finds a day per person (half a find each over the whole long weekend). English Nature should be preventing the erosion of the archaeological record on land for which it is responsible and subsidising, there should have been more than "problems" from them, there should have been a total ban on conservation scheme land. Dr Leahy mentions his contacts with the media.

I did two recordings for regional TV. In both cases I talked about the positive work of the PAS and did not disclose my real frustrations over rallies. The issue of English Nature was not mentioned. Also present was a young researcher from ITV who was looking into them doing a programme on metal detector rallies as a follow-up to 'Mud Men'. Again, I kept my opinions to myself and tried to steer him towards something more constructive and interesting on finds. I think that it is extremely unlikely that this proposal will go ahead and, if it does, I do not think that the PAS should be involved in any way.

What is NOT explained is why a PAS official is NOT giving the public media an accurate picture of his "real frustrations over rallies". Surely is that not what archaeological outreach to the public is all about? Outreach that is costing the public millions of pounds and the loss of millions of artefacts from the archaeological record, a precious heritage in which they are all stakeholders in common, and the PAS official when asked to comment hides from the public what he thinks about what is going on?

But look at the next bit, ITV want to make a "programme on metal detector rallies" and states: "I do not think that the PAS should be involved in any way". That's a change from the PAS position on a projected programme about Treasure Hunting just under a year ago which the preparatory material they were discussing (not "binning") showed clearly that it threatened to misinform the public in a thoroughly disturbing manner. The PAS should not be involved in any way, EXCEPT to say that these things should not be happening. that would be proper archaeological outreach, but they do not really seem to have the stomach for that.

Note that Dr Leahy reports that three treasure finds were seen at this rally, of which two did not come from the rally at all, and the third (presumably found during the rally) left the site with the finder, who was going to report it to his local FLO (not the Coroner as the Treasure Act lays down?). This emphasises how important these rallies actually are in the PAS contacts with metal detectorists, without them the PAS would not be "contacting" so many of them, and would be getting vastly fewer artefacts in their database.

Dr Leahy also records his misgivings about the fact that some of the finders were people who had come over from the Continent to attend the rally, and he suspected would not be in the country long enough to arrange export licence formalities, and (since it would be much simpler) could be tempted to smuggle their finds out of the country. He records the fact that it was unclear what a PAS employee should do in such a case, and what powers he has to prevent such an eventuality (actually, none). The rally was attended by at least ten detectorists from the Netherlands, one German and one Canadian. There may have been other foreign detector users there of whom the PAS was unaware. It would be interesting whether there was any followup to this by the PAS to determine if an export licence was applied for (which would be in the PAS remit as part of its monitoring activities).

Paranoia and Spin: A Tekkie Reaction to the Bishop Burton Commercial Rally Report

.
In the post above I discuss the report by Dr Kevin Leahy of what he saw and experienced at the Bishop's Burton (E. Yorks.) commercial artefact hunting rally last month. This was posted up on the FID website along with a comment by Justin Deeks, FID Representative. He says "I [...] find it difficult to avoid seeing a political agenda behind it. He was a lot more positive at the event". Deeks says the number of recorded finds was so low because:

"finds were so sparse on the ground [...] Most detectorists present found nothing more than lead shot and modern items. A minority did come up with recordable finds and I know the great majority of these were offered for recording. [...] the organisers [...] had promoted the rally as being held on undetected land. This was clearly untrue, as most of it only produced small objects (the larger items being easier to locate especially with the detectors available in the past). Local detectorists present were speaking of having searched over the land in previous years.

So once again we see that artefact hunters are only too well aware that their activities are depleting the archaeological record. An area that was once "productive" of archaeological finds no longer is because of "metal detecting". Artefact hunting has removed a substantial quantity of the archaeological evidence from this area even before the rally was held. What is left now is only a shadow of the original record. It does not take much imagination to realise that the longer this goes on, the larger the areas of the British archaeological record (whole areas of precious relict landscapes) which are inexorably being emptied of any meaningful archaeological data allowing that history to be studied and interpreted by archaeological methodologies. Here it is 59 large fields which have been trashed, how many of those around have been similarly affected?

One element of Leahy's report concerned police activity near the rally which it seems had given the more paranoid detectorists some concern (the fact he mentions it at all suggests the subject had been raised with the PAS attendees at the rally). This is what he wrote:

At the start of the rally it was widely believed that Humberside Police were recording the registrations of all vehicles entering the site. This was linked to the earlier presence of the Police at the Alford rally where their information caravan was present. It seems that the police presence at Bishop Burton was due to conflict between students from Bishop Burton College and local youths during freshers' week. The rally was not on their radar.

The Alford rally presence may have been in connection with publicising the crackdown announced earlier this year on "rural crime" and it seems that metal detectorists took this to heart. Dr Leahy assures his bosses back in London though that the police were not taking an interest in rally participants (the reaction of the PAS to this news and what they did with that information are unknown). It would seem from this however that the gossip that the East Yorkshire police were 'recording car registration numbers' was just that, gossip. So what are we to make of Deeks' statement? He says:

As for the Police presence, I did meet a rally participant who said he had been stopped by officers close to the site and they told him they had a list of suspected nighthawks they were looking out for. I suppose he could have been lying, but why?

Because he is an idiot or a troublemaker? So, the police stop one of these "suspected nighthawks" going to a commercial artefact hunting rally in their patch and they ask him ... well, what precisely? He is doing nothing illegal going to the bishop's Burton rally, is he? This alarmist story makes no sense whatsoever except just that... an alarmist story intended to whip up tekkie paranoia.

Deeks suggests that "metal detecting rallies" are something the Minister (Ed Vaisey) "has a very positive attitude" about. Does he? What has the PAS done about that? According to Deeks, commercial metal detecting rallies

...also offer a lot to archaeology, and a very important chance for the PAS to engage with detectorists.

Indeed, the latter is true. The former most definitely is not when coverage, data recovery and recording fall below a certain level (a standard to be aimed for is set out in Our Portable Past). Anything less than that is commercially induced destruction on a massive scale.

PACHI BLOG BACK ONLINE, DESPITE UK METAL DETECTORISTS' THREATS

..
I was gratified by the number of people and institutions who wrote asking for invitations to read this blog while it was "author only" (that's what it should have said) and offered its author messages of support. Thanks very much to all those people. Concerned heritage organization Heritage Action (on whose forums aggressive and disruptive behaviour of metal detectorists and their supporters is no novelty either) helped out by hosting a text by me explaining why this blog was offline and pointing out in no uncertain terms why this sort of thing matters. I am grateful to them for this gesture of goodwill and support. Thanks also to Meg Lambert over in the US for recognising that problem with antisocial metal detectorists is no different from any of the other conflicts of interest in the 'scary' world of portable antiquities ruffianship.

I have now decided to re-open access to this blog to all interested (on both sides of the collecting 'fence'). The whole point of a public debate is that it should be public. If artefact hunters (so-called "metal detectorists") in the UK object to that, that's just their tough luck. There is absolutely nothing to stop them producing their own open-access blogs and websites, commenting on and debating points made, articulating their counterarguments and addressing the issues raised in texts like the ones I write here. That is something that to this day is wholly lacking from this milieu. In my view crude thuggish attempts simply to silence an ongoing debate about what is after all the common archaeological heritage by making threats and by the sort of pathetic 'anti-blogging' we have seen until now, is nothing but an immense and very public signal of the intellectual bankruptcy of the artefact hunting and collecting "cause".

To judge from the reaction on some metal detecting forums (like the Detecting Wales discussion list which you can see without registering to get access to closed access areas) artefact hunters in the UK were delighted that "the Barford Slayer" (sic) among them had managed to - as he put it - "put an end to Paul Barford and his anti detecting blogs" by resorting to enlisting local low-life to threaten his family. There has been almost universal approval in the milieu of the actions of the person concerned and by extension the crude 'methods' applied. I think many "metal detectorists " in the UK are only too aware of the "Portable Antiquities Scam" currently being perpetrated on British public opinion. That is, the huge holes in the arguments put forward by the supporters of the hobby of so-called "metal detecting" and the degree to which the flimsy façade of "responsibility" and alleged "benefits" for archaeology is based on wholly questionable premises as the foundation. Tragically for the archaeological record of Britain, the number of people actually questioning these premises is still relatively small. This is partly as a result of the sort of aggression and unpleasantness (including threats) that tends to be directed at their authors (even on 'academic' discussion lists such as the JISC-run Britarch discussion list of the Council for British Archaeology, and before this forced its closure, the Portable Antiquities Scheme's own public-access forum).

This has to change and there has to be more transparency about what these people are doing to the archaeological heritage in which not only archaeologists and collectors are the only stakeholders, but - primarily - the whole of society (and internationally). The conservation policies of English Heritage on sustainable management of the historic environment (download here) state clearly that the issues concerning conservation of the cultural heritage should be a matter of open debate and consultation. This is quite patently not happening in the case of portable antiquities issues. This may be very comfortable for the artefact hunter and procurer, it may be comfortable for the dealers and buyers, but all the time this is going on, the evidence we have indicates that the long-term survival and integrity of the archaeological record which we aim to protect is being severely compromised.

Since the metal detectorists of the United Kingdom with few exceptions failed to speak out against the attempt to frighten the author into silence - giving the impression at least that they were solidly behind it - this seems a good time to summarise some of the problems the milieu does not want talked about. I intend to make the next fortnight on this blog - "Scrutiny of English Metal Detecting Fortnight" with a series of posts summarising the chief problems with current English policy on the hunting and collecting of freshly dugup artefacts from archaeological sites and lifted out of the archaeological record.

In response to the sense of entitlement expressed in the all-too-public jubilation of 1000+ Welsh "detectorists" over on their forum at the news that a critic had been crudely silenced, and in the light of current ongoing political events over in Wales, I have started a separate blog:

'Na i PAS ar gyfer Cymru: No to a Welsh PAS'

This looks more carefully at what the Welsh artefact hunters in particular have to hide. In it I put forward the argument that the existence of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, an organization which is a "partner" to these artefact hunters, is to a great degree sheltering some extremely disturbing features from deserved public scrutiny. The archaeological record belongs to us all and not a minority of individuals with metal detectors who claim absolute entitlement to take what they want from it and do what they want ("it's legal innit?"). I present a number of cogent arguments for wider debate concerning the total scrapping of the Welsh PAS in order to bring out into the open the issue of what should be done about the damage caused to the archaeological record by "metal detectorists". Maybe English lawmakers will eventually draw a more logical conclusion about the need to do something about the 'hidden hobby' than to simply pat a few of the collectors on the head and throw millions of pounds at a Scheme-facade in a pretence that the problem is in some way dealt with. It is not.

In case anyone is wondering, though I did from other archaeological bodies in the UK , it was notable - though not unexpected - that I did not get a single message of support from the fifty or so fellow archaeologists working in "Britain's largest archaeological (sic) outreach" organization whose job it actually is to be conducting public outreach on the portable antiquity issues which I cover in this blog. Perhaps, like their "partners" the so-called "metal detectorists", Bloomsbury was only too happy at the apparent closing down of another venue of open public debate about portable antiquities and heritage issues.

UPDATE 11th October 2011: It seems "Detecting Wales" have decided they do have something to hide after all: access to the page about the Welsh detectorists' reaction to "Steve the Barford Slayer's" discussion-stifling "achievements" now seems to have been deleted or blocked. It must be so awkward being part of a hobby where you can't allow outsiders to actually see what members write because it would show that the hobby is not at all what your propagandists would like people to believe about it. More transparency and honesty with the general public please.
Vignette: The 'Guennol' Lioness and I have some loose ends to tie up.

Metal Detectorists Researching "History" in the UK

.

One of the standard pro-collecting arguments is that metal detectorists "research history" out in the fields while they are looking for artefacts to collect. This for the most part is nonsense, they are out there looking for things to collect. Any research they might do to put what they find into any context is done outside the normal rigours and methodologies of historical research, sometimes with tragi-comic results. Here is a classic example of the genre. There are good reasons why the History of Geoffrey of Monmouth and related material are not given much credence these days (not that they were in previous centuries either)- but some amateur historians simply do not read the kind of books which explain why. So we get some home-grown pseudo-historigraphy of the type represented by Alan Wilson. Now this gentleman has written a number of books on his theories and "has for years attempted to get the English Establishment to dig a simple hole in order to reveal the truth about the Kingdom of Wales and create a Tourist Industry" (eh? Tourists do not go to Wales?). But now we learn from the metal detecting forum UKDN that he has had help from Alan Hassell a "well-known" metal detectorist treasure hunter who has a big black box machine that makes loud noises (but never explains just what it is) which needs a little boy to carry around (a bit suspicious that). Together they "were able to find metal where there should not be any". They've just released some You Tube videos on their exploits (the texts cited below come from the links given lower down this post).

This Video held back for security and protection of the sites was never to be released until the Dumb, Stupid, Ignorant Academics and English Establishment did something to not only protect these sites but also to reveal the mistakes made in the past by trying to Silence Wilson and Blackett in the process. [...] Now beyond reasonable doubt the truth of these sites is revealed and the incompetance of the English Establishment EXPOSED for all the world to see. We take no pride in Destroying the name and reputation of Englands Establishment but enough is enough and they have had many oportunities to talk. Well let them talk their way out of this one. Dont believe anything the Englsih have to say about history its all Bullshit and we prove it.

Believe a metal detector instead, eh? Now my understanding is that these sites are in Wales, so I really do not know why its the English that are being criticised, and not the local Welsh archaeological services, but that is by the by. The problem is what these gentlemen have been telling the authorities they have found (the hyperlinks are mine, not in the original text)...

King Arthurs grave, The cross that Queen Helena recovered from the Holy Lands, King Arthurs Crown, and the Ark of the Covenant.[...] Apart from the Ark of the Covenant we also know where the Tabernacle was concealed. This is of far greater value than the Ark but for security reasons we make no mention of this in these 3 short videos.

Now funnily enough the authorities seem not to have taken their discoveries with the whining black box too seriously, so they decided to go public with the videos.

We implore the London Establishment and the Media to bring this to the Worlds Attention to stop mindless individuals armed with metal detectors destroying these very important historical sites. [...] After much deliberation we have decided to put these videos which prove beyond doubt that there is unexplained reasons why these sites have never been investigated or even considered worthy of an archaeological dig to investigate and close the matter.[...] Send links to these clips to every TV station and media newpapers to help protect these sites and hope that one day the world can see what is buried in these important places.

Well, if the machine is detecting metal I suggest that in one case its a collapsed and overgrown barbed wire fence.

The site they are searching here is the area around the Medieval church of St Peter Ad Montem at Llanharan, Glamorgan, a place the amateur historians consider to have been Caer Caradoc which they call Arthur's capital. They dug the church (which they own) here and 'discovered' an inscribed stone and a cast metal cross. Here's what one blogger has to say about them:

In 1983, they discovered a burial stone that reads “Rex Artorius, Fili Mavricius,” which supposedly means “King Arthur, the son of Mauricius (Meurig).” In 1990, they discovered an electrum cross that reads “Pro Anima Artorius,” “for the soul of Arthur.” The problem is, as the Bad Archaeologist points out, that “Rex Artorius, Fili Mavricius” actually means “King Arthur Mauricius, of the son” and “Pro Anima Artorius” means “Arthur for the soul.” Oh dear. This is not terribly complicated Latin grammar, although one could imagine that it might fool people who put apostrophes in plurals.

Frankly, I suspect that the guy with the wispy unwashed thinning hair has just written another book (let me see, "Lost Treasures of King Arthur"?) and these are promotional videos for it. But I'll put links up here for the value of the comism of the dialogue the metal detectorist conducts with himself.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veAg0RlpCZM
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO8X9OEVA4Y
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nChvYps-6IA
Showing some more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebQYayqTILQ&feature=related

So, how many of these sites are protected by law? What's the betting that there will be loads of nocturnal visitors out there with their "depth advantage" detectors trying to find the golden doors and the hidden chamber with the stashes of gold that are reported here?

This seems to be the video-maker's intention. We find this expressly articulated here:

Australian Treasure hunter Alan Hassell uses his special deep seeking metal detector to reveal metal targets hidden for centuries. The English Establishment need to act now or face the humiliation of the world's media for incompetence. Now these sites have been revealed detectorists and night hawks will be out in force SEEKING FORTUNES. The time for these imbiciles has come for them to come out into the open and mediate is NOW not in the future NOW”.

("Mediate"?) The misspelt adjective "imbeciles" of course refers to "the Establishment" rather than the metal detectorists who are going to be out at these sites with their metal detectors seeking the Ark of the Covenant.

Note the way the treasure hunter, not once but twice, shows how "by triangulation" (eh?) he has worked out precisely where "the gold" is behind that slab-built ("look how easily they come out") wall. It's almost as if he wants somebody to go there at night and tear a big hole in it - that would make a really good photo ("We will probably never know what they took") for the book, wouldn't it? But then inciting somebody to commit vandalism is not exactly "responsible metal detecting". So this whole affair does not depict treasure hunting and metal detectorists in too favourable a light. I wonder if the PAS would care to issue a statement on these videos while Wales is still within the PAS remit? (Don't hold your breath).

Vignette: Loopy King Arthur stuff.

PAS: Missing and Avoiding the Point

.

If any of us had suspicions that the PAS is 'losing it', they really seem confirmed by the latest pronouncement to emerge from their Bloomsbury head office. I have previously discussed (probably several times) the new trend towards so-called "depth advantage" (I would call them 'site-wrecker') metal detectors. I think Heritage Action also has drawn attention to the 'buzz' about them on the detecting forums. You might therefore have expected PAS to be aware that such things exist and that tekkies are discussing them excitedly. Then I have also mentioned here several types of metal detector disguised as something else (like the 'Rover Undercover') which their manufacturers say are designed to be used in situations where the artefact hunter 'does not want to attract attention' to the fact they are metal detecting there. Heritage Action decided it would be a good idea to ask PAS about what they are doing about these new trends in an effort to encourage "best practice" among "finders". So they sent them a question.

Question Posed: “Has PAS ensured that every landowner is aware there are metal detectors disguised as walking sticks and a new generation of deep-seeking metal detectors that pose a potential threat to archaeology?”

Seems like a pretty simple question, not a tricky one at all. British antiquities preservation legislation, such as it is, has its origins in Queen Victoria's day and as such places the responsibility for looking after the buried heritage on the educated class of the day, which was the landowner. And so it remains today, in the case of unscheduled archaeological sites it is the landowner who says who can go on them and plunder them for collectables. As such, Heritage Action has always had the perfectly reasonable standpoint that if we want to protect and preserve the archaeological record, British archaeology should be doing active outreach to landowners to persuade them to (and tell them how best they can from an archaeological point of view) look after the archaeological sites on their land. Like hedges and wildlife.

So it seems to HA (and to me) that to fulfil this role properly includes keeping landowners and land users fully appraised of the threats. In that context, alerting them to the fact that some firms are developing metal detectors disguised as other objects so dishonest users can avoid getting caught artefact hunting where they should not, is entirely justified. Let landowners keep a look out for such machines and consider throwing anyone off their land who is carrying one. Equally, artefact hunters who turn up with 'site wrecker' machines are not the "harmless hobbyists just taking things from the topsoil" they claim to be. Again, the informed landowner (for example those taking part in Environmental Stewardship schemes) might consider whether such machines are not damaging the archaeological heritage and ban their use on their property.

Now HA and I happen to feel that PAS does not do enough to keep landowners informed about what artefact hunting is about, vide the farce over the PAS landowner leaflet. They are afraid (yes) of the reaction of the tekkies, who have made their opinions about this 'going behind their back' (sic) known. So actually I have the feeling they were expecting a short answer to their simple question: "no".

The answer that was received was extremely surprising. It showed above all that PAS did not understand the question!!

Response by PAS: “In response to your question dated 28th April 2011, Roger Bland has asked me to state: Probes such as this have been on the market for several years. They are used to locate the precise location of a metal object within a block of soil once this has been located by the search head of a metal detector. We do not think contacting every landowner to alert them to existence of these devices is either necessary or practicable.”

"Probes such as this?" Roger Bland, the Head of the PAS seems from his reply not to be terribly clued up about the tools of the "finders" with whom his Scheme is in a "partnership". That is pretty astounding, actually. He is confusing the tools to which Heritage Action refers with the pinpoint probes I discussed here earlier. But what HA was talking about are not “probes”, they are metal detectors.

The manufacturers refer to them as that and nothing else and promote them for use in scanning the ground and nothing else. There is in fact no confusion whatsoever about their intended or actual use. One does not require something “disguised as a walking stick” to use as a probe in conjunction with another metal detector. One does need something disguised as a walking stick in order to search in the way the manufacturers indicate – “in areas where you couldn’t with common detectors… without arousing public interest” and to “scan places you never could scan before”. There can be no doubt these machines would be objects of desire for nighthawks (or to be precise in this case, dayhawks), people intent on detecting without anyone knowing.

As HA points out, it is difficult to see how it can be said that it is "not necessary" to keep landowners involved about new developments which could facilitate illegal artefact hunting on their land.

But look how the second element of the question was simply ignored. The PAS totally ignored the bit of the question which asked for its position on "a new generation of deep-seeking metal detectors that pose a potential threat to archaeology?" (I would not have used the word "potential", they DO pose a threat to buried archaeology). That is just a total cop-out.

I suggest next time Heritage Action should go instead and ask the pigeons in Bloomsbury Square, they'd probably get an equally sensible answer to their questions from them than from inside the British Museum.

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?