No Beacon Award for English Heritage: Fragmentary Conservation Consciousness and Fragmentary Policies

.
British archaeological conservation policy is a shambles, everybody knows that. Further evidence emerged a while ago and everybody decided not to talk about it. Somebody forgot to tell Heritage Action about maintaining the conspiracy of silence - so they published a text on their website which everybody is pretending now they've not seen. Why not have a look at what the authorities over there do not want you discussing? The text is a real sharp reminder of how PAS is the anomalous element in conservation "policy". The text is called "Don’t build Jubilee Beacons on heritage sites!" which seems pretty obvious until you ask the question, well what is a "heritage site"?

English Heritage has just issued Guidance for organisers of Jubilee beacons to ensure archaeological sites aren’t damaged. A good idea, but one bit surprised us: “Staff at your local authority Historic Environment Record will also be able to advise if the location of a beacon could cause harm to an important undesignated heritage asset and suggest alternatives”

Undesignated sites are unscheduled ones. There are hundreds of thousands and they have no protection so it’s good to see English Heritage explaining the importance of checking no damage is likely to result from beacons. However, they don’t issue equivalent advice about a far larger and ongoing potential for harm on the self-same sites – the army of metal detectorists, sometimes in many hundreds at rallies, who legally target those sites in particular (the very essence of metal detecting is to find unprotected archaeological sites so as to legally maximise the finds rate). Where is the advice from English Heritage asking detectorists, including rally organisers, like beacon organisers, to check if it will cause damage and go elsewhere if so? Nowhere.

Heritage Action point out the two main reasons why English heritage "can feel free to flag up a minor temporary threat but not a massive ongoing one". The first is that beacon builders, being normal folk, will be willing to comply with any request to avoid certain sites if asked, especially if the argument of conservation is raised. English Heritage would probably expect no resistance from the highly receptive and co-operative middle classes. Whereas:

asking metal detectorists to desist from detecting on an important but legally unprotected site that they have researched, identified and targeted for that very reason is just a joke. It’s legal innit? LEGAL. Don’t try to restrict our hobby or else we can promise widespread nighthawking from some of us. Second, there’s no such thing as a Portable Beacon Scheme so there’s no-one asking English Heritage not to antagonise beacon builders.

When are we going to see some 'joined up thinking' in the United Kingdom about how to protect the archaeological heritage from damage in a more holistic programme, and not a series of mutually conflicting ad hoc fragments masquerading as policy?

Just Imagine this Happening in the UK: "Join AIA in Opposing Treasure Hunting Shows"

.
Just imagine this happening in the UK. Archaeologists learn about a TV programme about treasure hunting and react as archaeologists should to anything which creates a threat to the archaeological record and public perceptions of archaeology and archaeological convention. There was such an occasion a while back when a (single) PAS employee with a conscience anonymously passed on the information about what PAS was scheming with a TV company, and what happened? Most UK archaeologists shrugged, some made fun of those criticising such a notion, one or two made desultory mumblings, but then forgot about it. "Not my problem" it seems they concluded. Here is how the conservation conscious AIA has reacted in the USA to a similar matter. Quite a difference, isn't there?

Dear AIA Members,
The AIA has learned of two new TV shows that promote treasure hunting to find archaeological objects. National Geographic's "Diggers" airs tonight and Spike TV's "American Diggers" will air next month. Both shows feature metal detectorists and at least one ("American Diggers") emphasizes the commercial value of the found objects. The AIA believes that these shows promote the looting and destruction of archaeological sites.
The AIA has joined several other groups including the SAA, SHA, and RPA in voicing concern about these programs and the negative messages they send about cultural heritage and its recovery. Links to copies of the SAA and SHA letters can be found at the bottom of this letter.
We would like to ask you, our members and archaeology enthusiasts, to send letters and/or e-mails to the companies involved asking them to alter the message of the shows and to provide disclaimers during the airing of the show that makes it clear that what the shows are promoting is unethical and in some instances may even be illegal. We hope that they will engage in a meaningful dialogue with archaeologists about the illicit practices they promote.
Sincerely,

Elizabeth Bartman
President

Voice your Concern
Spike TV,
Scott Gurney and Deirdre Gurney
Gurney Productions, Inc.
8929 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 510
Los Angeles, California 90045
http://www.gurneyproductions.com/contact

Kevin Kay
President, Spike TV
1633 Broadway
New York, New York 10019
http://www.spike.com/about/feedback/

Send comments or questions regarding National Geographic Channel television programming:
comments@natgeochannel.com

There are also Facebook Pages where you can comment.
One is a "People against American Diggers" Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/People-against-Spike-TVs-American-Digger/193110227460512

If you would like to add comments to the Spike website, please visit the comments section at the bottom of the following page:
http://bit.ly/yQjlXP
The Spike TV announcement is available at:
http://bit.ly/xm2QyI
See Letters Submitted by the SAA and SHA
SAA Letters:
http://bit.ly/w2MHJM
http ://bit.ly/wzT7IA

SHA Letters:
http://www.sha.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/TepperAmericanDiggers2272012.pdf
http://www.sha.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/National-Geographic-Letter-22820121.pdf

Petitions
http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-spike-tv-from-looting-our-collective-past
http://www.change.org/petitions/national-geographic-society-wwwnationalgeographiccom-stop-airing-the-television-show-diggers

"Voice your concern", now that's a novel idea isn't it? I suppose first UK archaeologists would have to get their noses out of their finds trays and coin books and actually be a bit concerned about things like this ... (by the way, the 'Spike' petition has reached 15,475 signatures).

Then we have the summary (Wednesday, February 29, 2012) on "Sexy Archaeology" of what has been going on:

An update on the fight against televised looting

I am overwhelmed by the response received in regards to both Spike TV's American Diggers and National Geographic Channel's Diggers series. The outpouring of support from archaeologists, professors, curators, students, enthusiast, and legitimately concerned individuals is overwhelming. I want to extend my thanks to everyone who has taken time to show their disgust and anger over what is percolating in the television landscape.

Here is an update across the board as to what is happening:

• A petition entitled "Stop Spike TV from looting our collective past!" has exceeded 15,000 signatures.
• A petition has also emerged to stop National Geographic Channel from airing a similar series entitled Diggers. While falling to second in the headlines, this series is nearly identical to Spike TV's American Diggers.
• Two Facebook groups have emerged to protest both televised looting series American Diggers and Diggers.
• The Society for American Archaeologists (SAA) released two statements this week "unequivocally opposing" both Spike TV's American Diggers and National Geographic's Diggers.
• The International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management has also released a statement warning that these two series will establish a fad for looting.
• KTVA in Alaska aired a report on the story. The first episode of the series was filmed in Girdwood, Alaska.
• WSET in Virginia also aired a story, with an emphasis on National Geographic's Diggers.
• Numerous blogs, seasoned veterans, professors, professionals, and organizations have expressed disgust and opposition both in the media and online, but more is needed. State your argument and then post it on one of the two Facebook groups listed above or on the Sexy Archaeology Facebook Group. Every bit helps.

Archaeologists may sometimes be divided on their interpretations of history, but one thing has been made abundantly clear these last few days: when it come to threatening the historical record and the science of archaeology, we stand together. Don't let bad science or non-science ever rear its ugly head in the media because more often than not, what the public sees the public does.

Obviously Archaeology is not sexy enough for British archaeologists to care a hoot about artefact hunting going on under their noses. They and their inaction are put to shame by their American counterparts.

National Geographic and Bozo Archaeological Site Emptying

.
John Doershuk (State Archaeologist, University of Iowa) prepared a report on one of the two TV "metal detecting series" for the membership of the National Association of State Archaeologists. His text is quoted here with his permission.

I watched both of the 30-minute episodes of "Diggers" broadcast yesterday evening, although I barely made it through the second half-hour as I found it becoming repetitively boring (and chock full of ads -- more on these, below). The show is typical Natl Geo style -- beautiful locations, good camera work, well-edited. But the "stars" -- the self-styled "Ringmaster" and "King George," are buffoons - I shouldn't doubt that serious metal detecting folks will not appreciate the caricatures. These two spend a great deal of camera time relating their enthusiasm for finding "juice," "nectar," and "roundness," all their terms for the buried "treasure" they excitedly dig up. I didn't think their "discovery rush" translated all that well despite their over-the-top efforts to whip the audience into a pot-hunting frenzy. There's also plenty of reality TV side-show antics, such as silly bets between the two -e.g., who comes up with the oldest item-leading to the loser having to complete a dumb stunt like riding a bicycle off a dock into a freezing cold lake while in drag or licking a jellyfish washed up on the beach (I kid you not).

Dr Doershuk notes that, unlike the way artefact hunters are at pains to present their hobby to the outside world in the UK, here there was:

no effort at all trying to legitimate this activity as anything remotely educational or additive to general knowledge [...] "the past" and "history" were repeatedly invoked as cool, interesting, but ultimately, simply a source of cash. In the first two minutes, the tone was set and the rest of the dialogue was unwavering: "we're obsessed," "a thousand ways to cash in," "wild west loot -- we're going to get digging" [the first episode started in Montana -- "Old territorial prison grounds"], "so join the search," "let's plunder this pokey." On and on.

In the first episode that went looking for the graves of inmates to dig up at an old prison site in Montana. The second episode was set South Carolina, first on James Island ("scene of many Civil War battles") and then to Fenwick Plantation

where Revolutionary War and War of 1812 buttons, bullets, and coins were recovered. Having spent the past two years in an (on-going) struggle to preserve against planned development the only War of 1812 battlefield known in Iowa, it turned my stomach to see these two cavalierly pock-marking what was clearly a battlefield context with good integrity, selectively removing the metal items they happened to detect-there wasn't even a semblance of concern shown for the benefits of being systematic. In each episode, they pocket their take -- no mention of showing or sharing with landowners, and then they sell some and the rest is apparently kept, although again no mention is made of recording provenience or any such concerns.

Dr Doershuk summarises "the main message of the programming that comes through loud and clear: the past is there for the taking, help yourselves like we do, preservation isn't even worth talking about".

Cash, in the end, is what this show is about on two parallel levels. First (and foremost re why made and shown) it's about advertising revenue. Consider this list: Verizon, iPhone S, Nationwide, GEICO, Mazda, Acura, Volvo, Sam Adams, Heineken, and CSX Rail -- these are the majors. What strikes me as especially telling is that the personas Ringmaster and King George project is anything but a Heineken-drinking, Volvo-driving, iPhone-using demographic. I'm not sure what to make of the combination of bozo-behavior on a seemingly respectable, education-oriented channel like Natl Geo, but maybe we are witnessing the descent of Natl Geo into the realm of unabashedly "whatever" programming. For the moment, they are a preferred venue for Heineken and Volvo, but maybe in a year or two it will be Bud Light and Chevy.

Well, after all with Hawass gone, they've lost their Explorer in Residence to whom every tomb door in Egypt was open, and they'll have to come up with something to fill the vacant oooo-ah-archaeology slot in their programming.

He ends:

I'll never intentionally watch this program again as there is simply nothing of value to it, not even mindless entertainment. I hope this is the general response, and Natl Geo drops it.

And in contrast, I hope they show such a metal detecting Bozo-flick all over the world, including in Great Britain. That'd do public opinion the world of good to offset the touchy-feely fluffy bunny junk about artefact collecting they get foisted off with by the PAS and the UK media they have in their pockets. Bring on the Bozos.

Hat-tip to Will Anderson, and thanks to John Doershuk

Treasure Headed Back to Spain, Underwater Treasure Hunters "Driven Underground"?

.
The decision that Odyssey Marine Exploration has to surrender the cargo of the Spanish ship Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes to its owners, Spain by February 24 was slammed by the salvage companies lawyers.

The company will abide by the ruling, even though it "flies in the face of all legal precedent," Melinda MacConnel, vice president and general counsel of Odyssey Marine, told reporters after the hearing. MacConnel said the ruling "undermined" the jurisdiction of U.S. courts in naval affairs, and complained that Washington had influenced the case in Spain's favor. "Clearly, the political influences in this case overshadowed the law," she said. The ruling would also discourage other treasure hunters from reporting their finds, she added. "The items will be hidden or even worse, melted down or sold on eBay," she said.

well, golly, Washington is concerned about how deeds done out there by US citizens is going to affect the international position of the USA? How awful. How awful for US Treasure hunters who want to go out there and rob war graves belonging to another country for gold and silver coins to sell on the open - US - market for a huge profit. As for US courts not having jurisdiction over property of another country outside the borders of US territory, how odd, eh? Hands up, who thought the Americans owned the entire world? Have a look into the details of how (and where) Odyssey gained the salvage licence in the first place and how they tried to hide the date (it was announced as a "colonial period wreck") and location, and thus identity of the ship.

But, look what other argument crawls slimily out of the woodwork here. If US courts do not give underwater grave robbers all the property they find there belonging to other people, Melinda MacConnel argues that grave robbers are not going to report what they hoik out in future. Let us recall that Odyssey is not some two-bit mom and pop treasure hunting outfit. It was set up to be a legal enterprise doing everything to the letter of the law, and profiting from the sale of legally acquired artefacts. That there is already a black market of illicitly and illegally acquired shipwreck-derived antiquities out there is not denied by anyone. MacConnel's argument is just the same as the UK metal detectorists ("if you make everybody adhere to standards of responsibility, all you'll do is drive the hobby underground") and the US no-questions-asked sellers and buyers of dugup antiquities ("if you make everybody adhere to standards of responsibility, all you'll do is drive the hobby underground"). Now Odyssey is claiming that if you make everybody salvaging material from historic wrecks adhere to standards of responsibility (like sort out the ownership issues before you begin work, not after), this will drive the business underground.

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.

Farmer Giles is Confused about UK "conservation", as are we all

.
From a UK farming magazine's letters page:

Dear DEFRA,
I see from your Entry Level Stewardship handbook (in which you explain how you will pay farmers like me for looking after our land) that I must not "run free-range pigs on archaeological sites” (Section 1.5.4) whereas “metal detecting is allowed on land within an ELS agreement” (Section 1.5.5).

Can you please explain why that is, given that as we both know, pigs don't dig down half as far as detectorists or take any artefacts away? It seems to me your rules are anti-oink but pro-oik. Why do you take such an irrational stance? Are you trying to protect archaeology or not?

Sincerely
P.I. Giles, Priory Farm, Porkton, Nr Cheltenham, UK.

I think he has a point and DEFRA should make the distinction clearer.

Vignette: puzzled pig.

Rewriting History on the Twinstead Hoard Theft: It Never Happened?

.
The events on last year's Twinstead commercial artefact hunting rally where a whole load of people made of with gold coins some of which seem to have been offered on eBay within hours of coming out of the ground give some insight into what goes on in UK metal detecting. Thus a considerable effort was put, by metal detectorists and their partners the Portable Antiquities Scheme, into playing down these events. It seems with some success, the residents of the village obviously have no idea at all that this thievery was going on under their very noses. A local newspaper boasts that Twinstead has one of the best track records when it comes to low crime rates.

According to the latest Home Office crime statistics, Twinstead suffered no crime or anti-social whatsoever in November and October. Since December 2010, the village has suffered just three crimes along with one incident of anti-social behaviour. In July last year, there was a burglary and in September there were two thefts, which could have been either a stolen bicycle or theft from a person. Parish councillor David Holland of Church Road said: “It’s delightful living here."

I guess we can bet quite safely that it was not the commercial artefact hunting rally either that was counted as the "anti-social" behaviour. It is not known if Councillor David Holland is a metal detector user. Now why did metal-detecting police constable "Eagle 1" dealing with this case not report a crime in the village? Does he think he has all the coins back? Is he sure? How many coins were recovered within the 14 days, and what is the status of the investigation?

Halstead Gazette, 'Is Twinstead the county's safest area?', Wednesday 11th January 2012.

Debating Denkmals and Denkmal "schutz", Illegal Artefact Hunting and the UK's Portable Antiquities Scheme

.
A few days ago I posted up my comments on the recent article of Bangor Professor of Heritage Studies Raimund Karl about illegal artefact hunting in Austria and England's Portable Antiquities Scheme. Since it had taken me so long to get around to it, and knowing he's not exactly a fan of this blog, so he might have missed it, I thought it only courteous to inform the original author that there has been a discussion of his views over here. I also assured him that he'd have unrestricted right of reply here should he so wish. He wrote back yesterday evening saying that he was unsure that he'd have time to read and respond to it over the next few days but:

"if not, well, I think many of the more important things have been said already, so it shouldn't be much of a problem (at least from my perspective) if it remains as is".

[The "important thing" I guess being his demonstration that if you make artefact hunting illegal, people will do it "underground".]

Well, it seems to be the way of things that people quite happily write lots and lots about how wonderful the jolly old PAS is and "how wonderful those nice chappies with metal detectorists all are" ("except the black sheep minority of nighthawks that get the hobby a bad name"). The moment anyone proposes an alternative view, backing it up with reasoned (reasonable?) arguments, these same people tend to try and pass it over with silence. The PAS itself does it all the time of course, for example, they declined participation in the recent PIA forum around David Gill's recent comments on preservation, another of their advocates Derek Fincham also refuses to discuss the details.

It's remarkably easy it seems easy to come out with glib and politically-correct, "look wotta lotta stuff we got" - "never mind the quality look at the sheer numbers" fluff. Anybody can do it. Its the deeper reflection on what it means, and what is NOT being said that tends not to be being done.

Yet, "heritage" surely is about open and public debate. That is, at least, what the British say in all their "heritage policy" documents. So when are we going to see some proper, informed, multi-aspectual, public debate about current British policies on artefact hunting, "portable antiquity" collecting and the no-questions-asked antiquities trade? The PAS and the universities surely should be at the centre of such a debate, but it seems they are simply dodging it for as long as they can. And how long can the archaeological record afford them to do that?

No, it is far from the case that it is "no problem [...] if it [what Professor Karl said] remains as is". The problem is that texts like his get picked up by people lobbying for the no-questions-asked trade (et cetera) and are then used to weaken resolve to deal with the illicit antiquities trade, "after all, it has been shown that...".

In the meanwhile, the tracking software suggests that apart from that guy down Cardiff way (a metal detectorist), nobody in the whole of Wales has looked at these texts - so I guess Professor Karl's "heritage studies" Bangor students do not read this blog either.

Vignette: Bangor University, metal detector-friendly UK academic institution.

Christmas Gifts to Keep the Farmer Sweet

.
The boys on "Detecting Wales" are discussing the Xmas gifts they give to keep their farmers sweet. The posting of "Superhero member" "Chef Geoff" was inadvertently revealing, imagine how grateful the poor sap of a farmer is:

I'm pretty predictable, a Christmas card, a bottle of wine and some chocolates for the family. [ ;wink]

Finds for 2011
Roman coins:- Nummus 96, Dupondius 2, Denarius 3, Sestertius 3, Folis 5.
Roman Brooches:- 23
Hammered Coins:- 35
Celtic Stater:- 1 [...] And every one self recorded with PAS

and all the farmer got for allowing him to add them to his collection was a bottle of wine and a box of chocolates?

Even valuing that lot at just a few quid each (not forgetting the value of the photos - 500 quid a shout according to some metal detectorists) if that is all the farmer is getting from guys like this, they are getting well ripped off, allowing these collectors to create a valuable private accumulation of antiquities at next to no cost. Perhaps farmers might as a New Year's resolution decide to take an interest in the metal detecting magazines, especially the bits about "how much are my finds worth" and how much some of even the more pedestrian "nummi" go for on eBay?

By the way, the rate at which "Cheff Geoff" has been finding the recordable finds he lists above is FIVE times the rate of the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter. Whether they are "recorded" or not, erosion is erosion.

Detecting Under the Microscope: More Grey Detecting in Norfolk

.
A group of UK artefact hunters have created a private facility for fellow metal detector users who do not want to responsibly report artefacts to the state-run PAS system. In imitation of the PAS, they have set up set up their own "database" to "record" their finds, creating an alternative definition of "responsibility" to that promulgated in the official Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales. It is allegedly "an initiative by members of the metal-detecting community to promote good practice within the hobby. [...] an online facility for detectorists to record their finds and ensure that the information is preserved for future generations" ["good practice" is undefined]. The pirate database however is incompatible with the format of the PAS database, and the format of Historic Environment Records used in planning, and does not allow for the accurate recording of findspot which is a key feature of the PAS system.

The UKDFD is used by 'grey' detectorists who fall between the extremes of the 'white' end of the scale (those who responsibly report all of their recordable finds with full details to the PAS) and the so-called 'black sheep' who hunt for artefacts for collection and sale by illegal means. There are many grey areas in artefact hunting and one of them is the degree to which the archaeological record is being plundered for commercial ends by these people. Artefact hunters deny it is happening, they are "all in it for the history" they protest. But eBay tells a different story to this broad brush generalization. Here we can examine individual, real-life cases rather than glib statements about the milieu of artefact hunters.

I came across an eBay seller from Wereham, Norfolk in another context (more of that later perhaps) and thought this case worthy of some attention. Here in the full majesty of the law a metal detectorist (I assume, since he presents himself as such in the archives of UKDFD) is benefiting from the lax English laws to hoover out collectable and saleable items from the archaeological record of, mostly it seems, Norfolk, and apparently instrumentally using the UKDFD to legitimise their sale. We can use the records of actions and transactions openly available on the Internet to see what happens to them.

This seller has some auctions going on at the time of writing. One of the ones that has finished however is a "WONDERFUL (sic) Roman Hound Chasing Hare Folding Knife Handle 1st - 4th century AD" ("Stunning artefact. Great detail. Extremely collectable. Lovely dark patina. Really nice rare item. Sold as seen."). It sold on 18th November to a buyer for 76 quid (I wonder whether the landowner who let him take it away knows that?) Buyer molenkamp who won it (apparently Simon Wicks, East Dean, Sussex) is a dealer busily acquiring quite a varied collection of dugup goodies on eBay from various sources (probably including a number of metal detectorists).

As "authentication" of this find, the seller offers the information that the object he sold has been "recorded" on the UKDFD detectorists' finds website and as a result,

"Nigel Mills ([....] comments: "The 'hare and hound' is the most common form of folding knife to have been manufactured in Roman Britain by native craftsmen. This type of knife was primarily used as a razor, and its popularity suggests usage by the Legionaries".[...] Recorded on UKDFD - Ref. No. - 34662.

Leaving aside the dubious ethnic label and social inference, let's follow that link through and pay attention to the field "recorded elsewhere?" and the negative answer.

A few moments spent on this seller's "eBay My World: dacockle (Feedback score 594)" page reveals a telling pattern. In the lasts twelve months, he has sold 123 items, most of them metal detected artefacts and coins, 29 of them in the last month. These are interesting statistics as it reveals that if he has been finding them himself, his rate of finding the most saleable of recordable items is actually FIVE TIMES that predicted by the much-maligned Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter. Five times. The evidence that he is indeed the actual finder comes from the UKDFD website, where many of them have been listed and the same person is given as the finder. [This gentleman has apparently recently (?) changed his user name on UKDFD from "cockled"(or variants thereof) to "Smith1430". The reason for this is unclear.]

What is more important here is that shortly after each item appearing as 'verified' on the UKDFD webpage, the majority of them appeared on eBay. From the "recorded elsewhere" field it is clear that the vast majority were not reported to the PAS. Some of the coins were shown to numismatists (again to supply some form of authentication and identification for the sales spiel). This casts some shadow on the purpose behind the UKDFD site, is it merely to provide authentication and legitimation of artefacts which are destined for the international internet market in dugup "minor" antiquities? Is that the "good practice' the UKDFD is promoting amongst its members? It is certainly legal, and I am sure these people are all "law abiding", but is it right? If so, why has a major metal detecting forum (not the UKDFD) banned its members from even discussing internet sales of the portable antiquities they dig up?

Looking at the public records of ebay, we can determine that the Norfolk metal detectorist's sales in the last month or so include:

RARE Coin Weight - C15th-C16th Ryal Series (#250925936344) UKDFD 32391. Sold for GBP 14.99

RARE Washington One Cent 1785? (#250915062399) - early US coin found in Norfolk GBP 19.99

SAXON Hooked Tag (#250925900155) =
UKDFD 32476 GBP 9.99

Collection of 11 Voided Long Cross/Long Cross Cut Halfs and Quarters From my collection (#250925844586) GBP 23.66

ABSOLUTELY STUNNING Anglo-Saxon Zoomorphic Strap-End (#250925877482) = UKDFD 32443. GBP 75.00

ABSOLUTELY STUNNING Shield-Shaped Heraldic Harness Stud (#250925929151) = UKDFD 32303 GBP 89.00.

Collection of Short Cross Cut Halfs and Quarters from my collection (#250925841626) GBP 37.65

VERY NICE Saxon Penny - Cnut (Rare Coin) (#250922368298) UKDFD 32291. GBP 270.00

Lead Artefacts from C17th English Civil War Battle/Skirmish Site - Kings Lynn (#250915611475) [BATTLEFIELD LOOT, 3 musket balls, 1x powder measure and an unidentified lead badge]. Not recorded anywhere, not even UKDFD: sold for GBP 8.50

Saxon Penny - Edward The Confessor (Rare Coin) (#250915239716) UKDFD 33805. GBP 172.00

Norman Penny - Henry I (Rare Coin) (#250915247711) = UKDFD - 33594. GBP 200.00

EXTREMELY RARE Scottish Alexander II Hammered Penny (#250915254953) UKDFD - GBP 227.00

Bulk Lot of 100 Roman Coins uncleaned and unresearched, as dug in Norfolk. (#250915582472) GBP 65.00

STUNNING Gold Edward IV Rose Noble/Ryal, "Although found in isolation , it is probably from a hoard. Starting price at £2250 reflects condition, NEF".(#250908448441). (found near King's Lynne) "recorded" in UKDFD Sept 26 2011 and apparently nowhere else. Sold for GBP 2,402.76, Oct 20, 2011.

Bronze Vessel Leg (#250855040722), sold for GBP 0.99, buyer comments "provenance would be useful"

There are 29 pages of this, going back to March 31st 2008 (though he is a user since the end of December 2007). Nearly 600 transactions.

In the period of just over a month between the end of October 2011 and today, it seems that this gentleman has made GBP 1762 from selling off the small pieces of metal he has found in the fields of Norfolk farmers (plus another 2402 quid for a single gold coin which may have been from an otherwise unknown hoard). If that can be extrapolated from 30 transactions (average sixty quid each) to the 600 he (and other metal detectorists) participate in, it becomes clear that the searching of fields for metal scraps is a nice little earner. Add to that that the non-collectable non-ferrous metal has a substantial scrap value, and some collectors claim to be able to sell the photos of individual quite mundane finds for 500 quid apiece, the financial rewards are tempting. That is even if the honest ones are returning a hefty proportion of these earnings to the landowners who let "finders" like "Smith1403", and "cockled" take away these money-making "minor" finds.

But how many landowners see even a penny of such profits? Most "landowner agreements" published on detectorist websites do not include ANY mention of this, the only exception being a mention of Treasure cases or individual high value finds, the sale of which has of course a very public character. The cumulative value of the small pieces of corroded mud-caked metal shown, perhaps deliberately dismissively, as the detectorist exits the field is not mentioned. Certainly, checking reveals that none of these agreements mention the photographic rights. One can only conclude that some, perhaps many, and maybe even the majority of landowners are being royally ripped off by these artefact hunters and kept wholly in the dark about the financial worth of the "just old scraps this time" they allow to be taken away. When however a landowner requests some kind of remuneration for allowing people onto their property to find these things and imposes conditions, there is an uproar about "collectors' rights" (let us compare HRH's proposed annual fee of GBP 70 with the 1760 quid made by the seller under discussion here last month from selling off SOME of what he has found recently).

The rate of finding some quite nice saleable stuff by this detectorist is quite remarkable. He does not say what machine he uses, nor how many detecting hours a week this represents, nor where in the region of Wereham and King's Lynne he is finding these "productive sites". As I say, the rate at which he has been selling finds recently is five times the rate predicted by the HA counter. The only thing that would bring his selling rate to that of the erosion counter's rate is if these finds are THE ONLY things he has found over a period of twenty years which he is now disposing of. Is that the case? Is it the case that he has not actually found all these finds himself, but perhaps bought them from others and then represented them as his finds on UKDFD? I must say that knife handle with which I began this text does look a bit odd in the photo, also that's not really a very common "patina" for Norfolk dug ups is it? What it looks like (from the photo) is the sort of deep green chemical patina that you get on a number of "Roman" objects that have been coming out of Bulgaria. You can compare the picture on eBay (and the photos of Balkan dugups on eBay) with photos of the appearance of objects from Norfolk on the PAS database to spot the difference. So, was this knife handle really dug up in Norfolk by this artefact hunter and ebay seller? Or if it is a Norfolk dugup, has the finder for example stripped a crude example of one of these objects with acid or coca-cola or whatever it is detectorists use and then repatinated it with the sort of gunk you can buy on eBay too?

These are just a few of the questions that arise when we start looking at individual cases. At the moment, I see that on eBay there are 1983 objects* on sale in the "British Antiquities" category on eBay.UK1983 objects (that's not including Roman and Medieval coins which are in a separate section) being sold by several hundred individual sellers. What stories and patterns of activity would a close examination of all of them reveal?

Vignette: what lies beneath the nice clean white surface


*Though it has to be said the complete lack of intelligence of some eBay sellers is clearly such that a whole range of other objects are falsely listed in this category.

BBC on the Twinstead Theft

.
The BBC has picked up the story ("Coins disappear at Twinstead metal-detecting event" 1st December 2011) its rather an oddity - no quote from the PAS as is usual in articles about "metal detecting". Quotes from the police instead:

Enthusiasts using metal-detecting equipment dug up about 200 coins, thought to be worth about £350 each, at a site in Twinstead on Sunday. But only two of the coins were handed in to be declared as treasure trove to the county coroner, police said. Essex Police are appealing for anyone who knows about the missing haul, worth about £70,000, to contact them.

I think when the BBC picks up the story it shows this is not a matter of concern for just a few isolated ("radical" sic) archaeobloggers.

UPDATE 2/12/2011: Coins handed in after plea over Twinstead metal detecting Thirty of the stolen coins have now been turned in -

a further eight people came forward on Friday but a lot of the sovereigns are still missing. It is believed that one person left with about 70 coins, the spokesman said. Police have appealed for anyone with the remaining coins to come forward.

Are the ("law abiding" no doubt) detectorists who say they saw the guy with 70 stolen coins unable to name him? Or are they simply unwilling to?

So, How Much Raised for "Heroes"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detecting under the Microscope: New Club Being Secretly Convened?

.

Mick Turrell organizer of "Leisure Promotions" commercial metal detecting and artefact hunting club, based in Newbury Berks has a newsletter for his members. One of them has passed it on to me and I was astonished to read the "Fortress detecting" attitudes it reflects. So much, it would seem, for the effects of thirteen years of "archaeological outreach", even in civilized Berkshire. Among other things, Mr Turrel writes:

I have heard whispers that someone is trying to whip up support for another organisation along the lines of both the NCMD and FID, but aimed at fighting back at those organisations that seem intent of attacking our hobby.

Well, they need to get in contact with Dave Welsh and Peter Tompa, to "Unite to Defend Collectors' Rights". This sort of thing seems right up their street. The justification for the need of these "Metal Detecting Minutemen" is that despite all the PAS "partnership" and sickeningly pro-collecting press releases in the national media, there is still - horror! - public criticism of the hobby and its effects:

We have had a relatively ‘quiet’ few years but the attacks are becoming more commonplace. For example, there is the Nighthawking Survey that showed that the situation had improved since the last survey, but it was still used to attack the hobby in the media. Then there is the Stewardship Scheme which has curbed the number of large rallies taking place by the restrictions being put in place. Fifty, or more, detector users in an event and the organisers need to give the archaeologists 6 months notice and it can be cancelled at the last minute leaving organisers with a huge bill. Do not think that this will not affect you, as it will shortly be reduced to just 30 detector users, thereby affecting most clubs as well! Then there is the small matter that we have a Code of Conduct, but that did not stop the archaeologists helping to rewrite it to their own specifications. If we suggested ‘helping’ the archaeologists to write a code for themselves, they would probably be quite upset by the suggestion so they will therefore understand why we would equally be upset. Then there is the ‘Voluntary Code’, which is not voluntary when connected with the Stewardship Scheme. If you do not follow it, the farmer could lose his funding. The attacks continue. How much more can we take before we fight back [?] I am not suggesting that our hobby is perfect, there are no doubt just as many ‘bad’ detector users as ‘bad’ archaeologists, but if they really do want us to work along side them, then this is not the way to do it. If it continues, then it would not be surprising if some in the hobby decide to fight back.

So creating a mutually agreed Code of Practice is "not the way" to go about working alongside each other? It is regrettable that Mr Turrel does not state what he condiders is. "Leave us alone, git orf are case" as NCMD's Trevor Austin once said? The people doing the Nighthawking Survey could not have bent over backwards any further in their efforts to stress that nighthawking was a quite separate phenomenon from "bona fide detecting", a superficial view which was a hat-tip to the prevailing mantras in the artefact hunting and pro-collecting archaeological milieus alike. It was nighthawking that was discussed in the media upon the report's publication, hardly therefore an "attack [on] the hobby". '

The Stewardship Schemes are no more no less than conservation schemes, put in place to preserve the resources of the British rural landscape. The accessible archaeological record in those rural landscapes is - whether artefact hunters like it or not - a finite and fragile resource which is being seriously depleted by artefact hunting. Any conservation scheme worth the name should be stopping, or at least managing and mitigating the losses. From our point of view, the Stewardship Schemes are not doing this to a degree which could be called satisfactory. remember that part of the money being paid to farmers is coming from European funds, and in most countries of the EU artefact hunting is not understood as "conservation' but looting of archaeological sites. Why should we be paying for English farmers to say they are 'conserving" something while they allow the looting of the archaeological resource? No, regulating rallies is NOT enough.

Go on, tekkies "fight back". Show us all how much entitlement you feel to carry on plundering the archaeological record for collectable artefacts for your personal entertainment and profit. Show the public (the real joint stakeholder in the heritage you covet for your personal use) what a lot of agressive oiks you have among you. Oppose the attempts by bodies such as the PAS to impose higher standards ("best practice"), please do, the sooner and more noisily the better as far as I am concerned. Then try and get some public sympathy. Come on, one, two, three, all together now:

"Git Orf Are Case!!
Stop the Gubn'mint Taking Away Are Rights
to Take Away Are 'Istry Fer Areselves!!".

Vignette: In 2012, will Britain be engulfed by a wave of populist pitchfork and torch protests spreading out from the epicentre of the "Leisure promotions" movement in Newbury Berkshire only to be crushed in a confrontation with the militant arm of the Young Archaeologists Club on the outskirts of York? And what part will the Portable antiquities Scheme play in the confrontation?

Detecting Under the Microscope: Getting it All Out (The Corringham Hoard)

.

Two members of the Wickford Metal Detecting Society used a mechanical excavator in Corringham last summer to make sure they'd recovered all the coins in a hoard they'd found so they'd get more of a reward to split. The haul of 14th century coins discovered in August 2009, is reported as "worth up to £50,000". It was found by Brian Smyth, 65, a retired Argos worker from Rayleigh, and Nick Rowntree, 57, from Rochford. These two have both been metal detecting about 25 years but declared this recent find "as their biggest ever" at the inquest on Friday.

The pair discovered the medieval ‘piggy bank’ containing almost the whole range of English currency circulating in the late 1300’s, including a substantial number of large gold and silver coins, whilst out on their weekly Sunday morning treasure hunt. Brian told the Enquirer: “We’ve been metal detecting on this same field for over 25 years so we weren’t expecting to find anything. We’d been out for two hours and Nick was back in the car ready to go when I got a ‘beep’.

The newspaper report states that Brian said he'd dug down "about a foot and a half" and then started digging out a large number of coins from the soil, the story goes on to assert that he was "ready to go home before his friend Nick joined in uncovering a further haul of gold coins on the edge of the hole". So at what stage should the pair have stopped digging and called the archaeologists in, before or after they got the earth stripping machinery in? What was the context of deposition of this find? Is the depth of "a foot and a half" (0.45m) within the ploughsoil in this field, or below it?

Phil Harrison, 'Medieval coin haul worth thousands dug up in Corringham', Essex Enquirer 14/10/2011

Vignette: The Corringham I remember.

Detecting Under the Microscope: Reading the Headlines

.
A reader urged me to take a closer look at the good news figures being produced for public digestion by the PAS ("News from the Scheme"). Well, the first thing one notes is there is no bad news there, no "yes, but", or "X,Y.Z is a matter for concern", is there? Are there NO concerns about artefact hunting as far as the PAS is concerned, nothing they would like the public purse to pump more money into it to deal with? Or are they quite happy with it ticking safely on more or less as it has been these past thirteen years?

Let us take a look at the "Treasure good news": In 2009, 778 finds of Treasure were reported.
Divided by 8K "detectorists" that equals annually about 0.1 finds (and rewards) each. In other words, statistically, if you buy a metal detector and learn how to use it by the time you've been doing it keenly for ten years, you'll have found a Treasure and may be be eligible for a hefty six-figure reward (and if you've not, you are doing something 'wrong'). They don't like being called "Treasure hunters", but with odds like that it would seem that there is some justification for thinking that this is precisely what they are all hoping to find.

In 2009 113 parties waived their right to a reward in 71 Treasure cases, allowing those treasure finds to be acquired by museums at no (or reduced) public cost. So? The public should not have to be bearing the cost of buying back from Treasure Hunters the national heritage anyway. If the inquest rules it is national heritage and not the property of the landowner nor finder, then why is the nation buying it back? The news item is spare on details about which "parties" waived rights, how much was involved, how many were landowners, how many "finders"? Among the latter, what was the percentage split between artefact hunters and accidental finders (and the landowners participating in the two categories of cases)? Can we please know both the number and status (detectorist, landowner, householder, walker etc) of the waivees? (PAS isn’t shy of making such distinctions normally). Is any group less generous than the others? Why is this headlined (just to make the "partner" metal detectorists look good)?

If there were (say) only 70 detectorists that waived their reward and (say) 700 of the Treasure Finds were made by detectorists that would indicate a 10% reward waiving rate amongst the "heritage hero metal detectorists". Is this considered satisfactory? Does it indicate, by extension, 90% of PAS's "partners" are greedy ruffians only in it for the money they can get off a grateful state? Does not direct observation suggest that figure is low?

And are there not another two statistics at least which are significant by their absence? How many rewards were reduced because of a breach of the Code of Practice (for example not calling in the archaeologists until the best part of the find had been dug out even though it was clear that a treasure was involved?). Also, maybe the PAS can tell us how many times the initial valuation of the find was challenged (upwards) by the finder? We hear many "detectorists" are scathing of the valuations of the Treasure valuation Committee and there is an appeals process - so how many times has it been used in relation to how many finds? And what happens, how many times does the public end up paying even more to get their national treasures in public hands?

Another headline: "In 2009 67,089 finds were recorded with the Portable Antiquities database". That is just 8.38 finds added to this database per annum per metal detector (0.16 per week each) if we assume there are 8000 of them active out there in England and Wales. But they are not all being added by "metal detectorists" are they? In any case what is important from the point of archaeological preservation is the number of records (not how many finds were in a bad constituting the basis for one record) that is 39870 records, and of those 37828 were found by "metal detectorists". Divided by 8000, that is 4.7 objects a year each.

In 2010, if we ignore the intrusion of the external CCI and RIACW data in the PAS records, that is still 0.21 finds a week each which is clearly less than a sane person would get out of bed for: "Five weeks before a decent beep M8...".


Just 1240 "metal detectorists" finding c. 30 recordable artefacts and coins a year could contribute the 2009 data 'haul' to the PAS database. I suspect that many find many more, but let's stick with those figures. That would mean that (using the 8000 estimate) we are observing the same effect as we would see if 6700 of them showed nothing at all. We are therefore talking about 85% irresponsibility. Despite 13 years pumping 13 million quid, a lot of goodwill, perseverance, tolerance and persuasion into a Scheme, all that has been achieved among the "metal detectorists" of Britain and Wales is a token compliance which is the equivalent of a 15% success rate. "It is better than nothing" I am sure we'll hear from the Scheme and its supporters. Is it? I do not think so, because if we accept that 15% is unacceptable returns for all the resources expended, "nothing" implies Britain has to take another approach to so-called "metal detecting". And Britain should have done it thirteen years ago.

Where Does This Stuff End Up?

.
The Polish auction site Allegro has a number of "interesting" offers in the ancient coins section, including antiquities, that some of us like to keep an eye on. Just now I spotted a seller from Warsaw with three metal items for sale today, an early medieval iron firesteel ("from a foreign collection" - difficult to say, it's an unspecific type) a brooch ("professionally repaired" - it is a Balkan/Pannonian fibula with the pin replaced ) and this:

Klamerka XVI-XVII w
Oryginalna klamerka datowana na lata 1550-1650. Wymiary: 29.59x28.32x9.79 mm. Klamerka pochodzi ze znaleziska w Wielkiej Brytanii, została zbadana przez archeologów a następnie zwrócona znalazcy. Dzięki temu posiada bardzo dobrą jak na tego typu przedmiot dokumentację. Nabywca otrzyma oprócz klamerki numer w bazie danych finds.org.uk na podstawie którego będzie miał dostęp do kompletnej dokumentacji sprzedawanego przedmiotu (zdjęcia, opis, datowanie, źródła bibliograficzne, miejsce znaleziska itp).

Since Google translator does not cope too well with that, I'll translate:

Buckle, 16th to 17th century. Original buckle dating from the period 1550-1650. Dimensions: 29.59x28.32x9.79 mm. The buckle was a find in Great Britain, has been studied by archaeologists and then returned to the finder. Thanks to this it has very good documentation for this type of object. The buyer will receive in addition to the buckle itself, its number in the database finds.org.uk on the basis of which he will have access to the complete documentation of the item (photos, description, dating, bibliographic sources, findspot, etc.).

This is actually the first time I recall seeing a PAS-recorded find from the UK on Allegro in a good few years of monitoring what goes through it. The starting price is 45 PLN (GBP 9.17).

Well, fortunately I do not have to buy the buckle to get the PAS number, looking through over the unsegregated mass of similarly dated items brings us to LVPL-11D583, found in or near Crowton, Cheshire by [Restricted identity] and recorded by Miss Teresa Gilmore on 4th May 2011. There is no proper grid reference for the findspot "Centred on field - Grid reference accurate to a 100 metre square".

Well, Mr Restricted-identity, "passionately intrestid in 'istry" no doubt, got his identification done at public expense and then pretty rapidly got tired of the object he'd dug up, and flogged it off - (and since its not included in the sale) having presumably lost the paperwork from the PAS in the meantime. Was there an export licence? Who knows? Who knows where it was between the tekkie flogging off a bit of "his history", and the Polish dealer getting hold of it? Certainly it is very unlikely that the PAS has a record of the subsequent history of this item. How many other things found by Mr Restricted-identity Northwestern metal detectorist has been dug out of the ground and pretty quickly afterwards sold off and ended up abroad? How many of them have been authenticated and the sales-spiel given some detail at public expense by the PAS? It is not by any means illegal, but is this too "responsible artefact hunting" in the eyes of the PAS?

Oh, and as for the "bibliography"... Does the PAS really think there is any kind of a connection between the lappets on the side of the loop here and the horse heads on Late Roman buckles? That really is an extremely dotty idea. Actually an even cursory look at the thousand or so buckles of the same date in the PAS database shows there is nothing particularly atypical in the projecting lappets on this buckle. The only other parallel cited is a "metal detecting" finds book - real cutting edge archaeological research going on in the PAS, no? So on what basis is the buckle dated, on the say-so of a metal detectorists' book rather than any evidence from stratified examples?

Photo: another freshly dugup archaeological find from England now being bought and sold abroad (Photo from PAS database, the only record now in Britain of this item)

And there's more

.
I should have checked out the Polish dealer's online shop (sklep internetowy ANTYK-WARIAT / FELIS, run by Robert Łączyński) before posting the text above. It turns out that the mysterious "metal detectorist" Restricted-identity has a tendency to get bored with his dugup finds soon after the PAS has looked at them. On the Warsaw dealer's website we find another four finds. Rather tedious searching of the still-clunky (it turns out if you want to find a particular artefact without its finds number) PAS database eventually tracked down all four. Like the buckle noted above, they are from the same Vale Royal area, recorded by the same FLO within a few days of each other. They all have the findspot identified by an NGR which just refers to the centre of the field where the "detectorist" asserts they were found. I bet if more detail was visible on the PAS database, we'd learn that these were all found by the same guy.



Średniowieczna klamerka. Datowanie: 1150-1350 rok = PAS LVPL-82C4B3 A cast copper alloy single looped oval buckle frame with ornate outside edge, typically of late 12th to late 14th Centuries AD. , Parish: Northwich

Klamerka od butów = PAS LVPL-83CDA4 A complete cast copper alloy double loop oval buckle frame and plate, of late Medieval dating (c.1400 to 1600 AD). Parish: Cuddington

Średniowieczna klamerka = PAS LVPL-81AF00 A complete cast copper alloy single loop folding strap clasp fastener of Medieval dating (c.1300 - 1450 AD). Crowton.

Element paska datowany na lata 1400-1600 = PAS LVPL-007B86 A complete cast copper alloy strap fitting of probable Post Medieval dating (15th to 17th Centuries AD). Parish: Lach Dennis.

The PAS records that there are some 60 finds from the same "finds cluster" recorded in Liverpool by Ms Gilmore. Their present whereabouts is unknown.

While these finds are not in themselves earth-shatteringly important, the fact that they all ended up for sale over in Poland does rather raise questions about the motives of the person(s) going out in the fields and searching sites to dig them up only to sell them on within a few weeks or months. It is perfectly legal, but is this "best practice", is this what the PAS would tell their "partners" is "responsible artefact hunting"? Or is it just metal detecting a finite and fragile resource for profit?

What would we find if somebody had the time and patience to compare internet antiquity sales with a database like the PAS one? That many dugups get sold within a year of the date they were dug up and recorded by the PAS? Or that the vast majority of the British-origin dugups on sale have not been recorded by the PAS?

How Much for the Heroes?

.
A few weeks ago I wrote ('Commercial Artefact Hunting "Festival" in East Yorkshire') about the way the newspapers had reported a commercial artefact hunting rally and the way a state-funded archaeologist said he "supported" it. The activity was justified to the public by saying it was a "charity" event. So now the money has been counted, how much did it raise for the landowner, how much for the businessmen running North East Weekend Searchers (NEWS) and how much went to Help for Heroes in the end? How much has the state earnt from the payment of taxes (income and VAT) on the proceeds, and how does this compare with the costs to the public purse of any PAS work on the finds necessitated by the rally participants taking them from the archaeological record? How much of the entrance fees have individual "metal detectorists" participating recovered by selling off the surplus finds on ebay and as scrap metal? And then the MUCH more lucrative photographic reproduction fees it is reported some of them gain for mere pictures of the dugups? How much archaeological information was lost to poor information recovery technique? I guess these are all questions that will remain without answer. I do note however that there is a thread on "Detectorist.co.uk" on this topic and an awful lot of detectorists are taking some interest in my views on the rally, which is good. Maybe they would like to ask Mr Smith and NEWS for the answers to these questions.

Detectorists and Scheduled Sites

. A comment on the "nighthawking" thread on "detectorist.co" seems worth drawing attention to. One "Fertling John" from Essex writes (Fri Sep 30, 2011) that he consider it "pointless" to consider "nighthawking" an offence on any scheduled site on arable land. He suggests "quite simply" that with every (sic) agricultural activity artefacts are "destroyed" and that even if such a site were to be investigated, he claims that the ploughsoil would inevitably be simply "bulldozed aside" (not recognising that excavation is just one of the methods in the modern archaeologist's toolchest). He proposes that "local detector clubs should be invited to search all scheduled arable sites to recover the artifacts from the plough soil under archaeological supervision". By that he seems to imagine (obviously not having actually read the relevant literature: Our Portable Past published several years ago by English Heritage on precisely this topic) that it is enough that people with metal detectors could hoik out the metal goodies and "they could then be plotted in say 100 sq metre squares" (does he mean 10x10 meter squares, or 100x100 metre ones?). Moreover the "huge quantity of ordinary" finds would be given to the "detectorist" and "retained by a museum" only if the artefact (so not the assemblage from an archaeological project) was "of local or national significance". This is the "win-win" as seen from the tekkie viewpoint, they get a huge number of finds to add to their collections or flog off on eBay the archaeologist gets a plot of the metal items shown to the nearest 100 metre squares and a site emptied of a large amount of the diagnostic artefacts. Who's going to archive the nails and lead fragments recovered from such a survey? And the worked stone, greyware body sherds, roof tile, animal bone, fired clay scraps and slag? These too are artefacts and by "Fertling John's" arguments all being "destroyed" to the same degree as the bits and pieces he and is detecting mates want to get their hands on. Then we have the ethical problem of archaeological supervision of a project which does not lead to the proper archivisation of the products. Or does Fertling John expect us not only to reject the principles of conservation in situ for the benefit of collectors, but also existing codes of practice and archaeological ethics? The question is of course whether artefacts really are being "destroyed" by being in the soil to the degree that it is convenient for artefact hunters to claim. Some of the fields they search have been ploughed for centuries and been fertilised for as long - so if this is causing the scale of destruction the claim so universally, why are there artefacts in them at all? This is, in my opinion (and I've looked into it quite careully) just a convenient "common sense innit" myth - not based on any real case studies or soil science - both of which suggest something quite different from the "doom-and-gloom-unless-you-let-us-hoik-it-all-out" prognoses of the would-be benficiaries. 

  Vignette: Gridded Fieldwalking is also a means of studying archaeological evidence preserved in situ (from the cover of Our Portable Past).

Detecting Under the Microscope 6: "Not the same thing at all"

.
Over on the "Detectorist.co" forum is another thread that most likely will be hidden by the "detectorists" the moment people start paying attention to what it's saying. It is a protracted discussion in response to a recent news item of what "bona fide detectorists" would like to see happening to the "nighthawks" who "get the hobby a bad name". There seems to be the typical problem of finding agreement just what kind of behaviour is covered under that label. One member (pseudonym "Belzoni") for example mocks the whole concept of reacting to detectorists who hunt for artefacts on somebody else's land without getting permission, who detect on ploughed up sites protected by law or those artefact hunters who do not keep the landowners informed of what they find.

This latter point of course refers to some comments made by conservation group Heritage Action and there is an interesting comment from a detectorist (pseudonym "Soapy Joe") with a bit of a conscience about this here. He asks - somewhat illiterately so I'll paraphrase - whether all members of the list are not guilty of double standards, how many, he enquires would hold up their hands and claim that they inform the landowner of every find they ave obtained from their land? He suggests that all detectorists say that they show the landowners all their finds but he would wager that a large percentage of metal detectorists [coming off the land] if asked if they'd found anything much will say that they'd not found anything much, but hiding the fact that they've got a hammered coin, or "in some cases som[e]thing far more valuable, And yes me lord i pleed guilty". It is interesting to note the "not the same thing joe" reaction of some forum members to this comment. But of course it is isn't it? Whatever the nature of any "agreement", it is still stealing to remove items of potential value without telling the landowner whose property it is.

One also wonders that if and when an object found is concealed from the landowner in the manner described, if and when it is reported, whether the finder gives the actual findspot or gives another one where he has a more favourable "arrangement" with the landowner. Or are such concealed objects simply the ones that never get reported to the PAS?

There are a whole lot of questions which really need close examination about the patterns of activity across the whole range of what we lump together as "metal detectorists" which are barely touched in the glib pro-artefact hunting material produced in support of the current status quo. Why is this not going on?