The Lenborough Hoard the Beginning of the End for PAS?

Lenborough Hoard tipped
out on a kitchen table. SEE how it
SHINES. Source: finds.org.uk (CC)

I think a certain amount of PAS-fatigue is setting in. While British archaeologists say the usual supportive things, avoid open criticism of the Scheme, are thankful it removes from them personally any need to be in direct contact with irksome tekkies, and some reach for their "data", it seems the PAS is no longer at the centre of any real debate in archaeology.

The Lenborough hoard fiasco has shown the extent of the failure of this social experiment. Found on a commercial event held on a fragile known site, and immediately decontextualised by being hoiked out blind with the FLO taking part. This demonstrates very clearly that the PAS really cannot even do what it was set up to do (outreach on best practice) or in any way exert any real influence on metal detectorists. The latter see it only as a convenient way to legitimise the hobby with very little real effort from them to win that privilege. That is, in reality, about as far as the imagined "partnership" between archaeology and artefact hunting and collecting goes.

I've been predicting that the Welsh PAS will fade away in the next few years and see that as providing an opportunity for opening new debate on the issue of how to deal with artefact hunting in the UK in general. David Gill has discussed the Lenborough fiasco in terms of where we go from here ('The Lenborough Hoard and the future of PAS' Looting matters Wednesday, February 11, 2015). I think in looking back at what will happen, the Lenborough Hoard, following on so shortly from the Hollingbourne one where the finder-hoikers claim the PAS said "you done well", will be seen as the beginning of the end. Gill notes that "Dr Roger Bland has suggested that the future of PAS is far from certain".

However, the head of the antiquities scheme that funds the finds, Roger Bland, said the future was looking uncertain because of budget reductions. 

"I'm not sure whether we're going to be able to renew the contracts for nine of the 32 posts that we've got in the scheme from the 1 April. 

"I'm quite concerned but I also feel that we've been in difficult places before and we've managed to keep going," he said.

My home county of Essex already has a volunteer FLO, a metal detectorist ("All Over Rover" mentioned on this blog a number of times), more and more of the PAS database is expected to be created by volunteer (karaoke) recorders from the general public - cutting out the idea of the FLOs actually acting as the medium for liaison and the passage of information about archaeology between archaeology and the public. This will make up the shortfall in "numbers" of finds recorded, but what about quality control? The PAS cannot keep up with verifying their own records while staffed at today's levels, and in the future? What is the future of the PAS? Will it merely "manage to keep going" and at what cost to the bits of its intended mission which do not consist of trite narrativisation of a "Ta-rahh! Look what we've found now! See how it shines!" and "Wottalotta finds we got" it really seems to me is which is what they mainly concentrate on at the moment.

The PAS seem to be under the impression that they can bluff this one out like they do all the time, questions are raised, they ignore them, and the way they see it, "nothing happens". What actually happens is that the people watching the PAS see that perfectly valid questions are raised, or something happens to which a PAS reaction would be expected (if we expect the PAS to be engaging with the broader public on portable antiquities issues), but time after time, the PAS is silent. That is what we see happening. The PAS have not issued a single official statement since the Lenborough Hoard was plastered all over You Tube and the papers. The FLO concerned has given two interviews, in the second of which she said she "felt like Howard Carter" and that's about it from the PAS. I think a certain amount of PAS-fatigue is setting in.

Failing to Agree

More from an FLO on the Lenborough Hoard fiasco. In response to an FLO's excited "Wow - it must be time to start rattling the donate tin as hoard really does need to be in a museum for all to enjoy" Paul Barford wrote:

Paul Barford ‏@PortantIssues  8.06
PeterReavill @AnniB_OxonFLO The archaeological context needs to have been properly investigated for all to benefit from, but was not 2/2 this is just a heap of loose objects from a farmer's table. Tragedy all round.

At which point I get the  response from

PAS in the marches @PeterReavill   8.06
@PortantIssues @AnniB_OxonFLO Thanks Paul - I take your point - but don't entirely agree with you. Objects have been found in many ways

But then archaeology is not just about "finding objects", that is the whole issue concerning the involvement of PAS in the Lenborough Hoard fiasco. To say he "does not entirely agree" that it is not from a heap of loose objects that the public benefits, but when the archaeological context of a stratified group like this really disqualifies Mr Reavill in my eyes as anyone who should be presenting archaeology to the public. But then the PAS employs all sorts to create their "database' and do archaeological outreach. 

But I would say if that is the level of 'outreach' which the British public is getting from PAS archaeologists, the archaeological community may as well jack it in and save millions of pounds and hope the cash saved goes to real archaeology. And if it does not, belatedly cotton on to what they've been doing wrong all along. "Objects have been found in many ways" indeed. Pathetic. 


UPDATE 15th June 2016

 Portable Antiquities ‏@findsorguk 3 godz.3 godziny temu

Last night @edvaizey highlighted the success of @findsorguk as part of the @britishmuseum and its reach across the UK

‏ 
Obviously has very low expectations. "Success" at precisely what?

Lenborough Fiasco, Attempted Damage Control Hoiker Style

No archaeological report has emerged from the Lenborough Hoard Fiasco, but the artefact hunters are still writing about it, as on John Winter's blog. He decides to attempt (The Lenborough Hoard Part 1, 4 October 2015) a bit of damage control - "It’s what detectorists do".

According to this new text, the finder drove all the way up from distant Southampton. He did this because he had some "sixth sense", the article says, because he "had time to do a little research and could see that some of the site was ‘new’ to the club and hadn’t been disturbed too much". So not "hammered" (emptied) like much of the British archaeological record is by collectors skimming off archaeological material to collect for personal entertainment and profit. In fact the search area included a known preserved earthwork site in the HER, i.e., the sort of site responsible artefact hunters should be keeping well away from. The finder was able to use that Southamptonian "sixth sense" again because the dig organizers had on display "details of the area, including large aerial map [of the earthworks preserved in pasture] for all detectorists to study" - but do not think that it is there so responsible artefact hunters could keep away from the areas of the farm with sensitive archaeology. Oh no. As Winter puts it:

"Paul told me that with experience you develop a kind of sixth sense, recognition of the signs in a field, and a kind of intuition that draws you to the best place to look".

Like where the earthworks are.

“It’s a good feeling!” [Thumbing your nose at the interests of the rest of society.]

Just "one coin" was all
he found in the bottom of this
hole before he called the FLO
over and enlarged it, he now says

It is interesting to note that the account of the initial discovery has now been modified. The more immediate report (2nd Jan 2015) "then I lifted a larger piece of lead and saw row upon row of coins stacked neatly" has been replaced nine months later with a fable of how after finding just one coin the finder claims:

"I didn’t touch it again and contacted the organiser Peter Welch and Finds Liaison Officer (FLO) Rosalind Tyrrell, who was on the site. She said that I had done the right thing and immediately taped off the area, declared it an archaeological site and directed proceedings.”

What we see in the "feroxchaser" video posted on You Tube on 23rd December 2014 her "directing" is a grabbing of loose coins out of a narrow keyhole scoop deep into the archaeological stratigraphy of a preserved earthwork site while it is recognized that the hoard itself runs into the edge of the hoik hole. This is not "directing" anything, it is an utter shambles. Winter reports:

“Each item was recorded, photographed in situ and excavated thoroughly and carefully. If you viewed the video made on YouTube of the removal it looks as though we spent about two minutes on the task,” said Ros. “That wasn’t the case. [...] The excavation had taken most of the day.”

Well, then her museum will be making the full documentation available showing that to be the case, won't they? Where is that documentation now? Nobody is saying that the grubbing up of this hoard should be criticised because it took "two minutes". Nobody says that the hole digging took "two minutes". What real (not imaginary) people who know what digging holes in archaeological stratigraphy on preserved earthwork sites involves are saying is that a hoard like this cannot be properly excavated and recorded between early morning and dusk in mid-December. Period. Any archaeologist will know that. The archaeologist quite clearly should have secured the site and organized a methodical recording and retrieval. She did not.

What was the significance of the "row upon row of coins stacked neatly" which the person actually digging the coins out reports? We will not know until we see the careful documentation of the position of "each item" Ms Tyrrell claims she made before she (in the light of her own account) inexplicably threw each of those individually documented coins into a big bag which was later that day tipped out loose on the farmer's kitchen table, irretrievably mixing any recorded coin groups which might have revealed how it was put together. Winter says:

"As yet nothing much is known about the hoard or what these coins were doing hidden in a Buckinghamshire field. It’ll be interesting to see what explanations the specialists come up with".

The specialists (and the rest of us to whom that heritage belongs) would have a better chance of getting to an informed interpretation if the coins and the associated material had been recovered in a way which would allow the internal structure of the group and its stratigraphic and other associations to be properly recorded. Obviously, hoiking them out loose into a carrier back "just before it got dark" reduces the information to a pile of loose coins and it's anyone's guess how they got there.

Seamus von Hanrahan, author of the popular "Numismatic Evidence of Alien Visitations" has already suggested one explanation. Because the archaeological excavation found no trace of a pit in which the find lay, the lead-wrapped parcel (which he says is in a form which bears a striking resemblance to the 'Volusian star cruiser' depicted in the Nazca lines) must have been deposited deep underground by a powerful teleportation beam. He uses this as evidence supporting his hypothesis that the victorious Alfred the Great was a shape-shifting lizard man from a distant planet who owed his victories to secret access to higher technology. Indeed, I doubt there is anything in Ros Tyrell's documentation which would refute that hypothesis in the 'Anything Goes Archaeology' currently being practised in Britain.

Roman coin hoard saved from Collectors

A generous and concerned British public has once again forked out another few thousand quid to Treasure hunters and their partner landowners to stop the coins being split up and sold on the international antiquities trade ('Roman coin hoard to stay in Devon'). While that is good news, one wonders why such a situation exists in England and what British archaeologists (the Portable Antiquities Scheme in particular) are doing to raise public awareness and combat the problem of the wholesale legalised looting of the British archaeological record for personal profit (1970 UNESCO Convention article 10). Surely the answer cannot really be "nothing at all"?

The Seaton Down Roman coin hoard will stay in Devon thanks to a number of donations and grants. The hoard has been purchased by Exeter’s RAM Museum for £50,000, allowing it to be kept together and displayed for the benefit of the people of Devon and Exeter and for future generations.

This hoard was mentioned on this blog earlier for three reasons. Firstly, because the finder guarded it against being stolen by other metal detectorists after the loot, putting the lie to the claims that in other cases (most infamously the Lenborough Hoard fiasco) that this is somehow impossible to achieve. [PACHI Friday, 26 September 2014, 'Seaton Hoard, Dug Methodically by Archaeologists: Finder Slept in his car on Site Protecting it From Other metal Detectorists'; PACHI Saturday, 3 January 2015, 'The Excavation of the Seaton Down Hoard'].

Secondly, it also more infamously produced the so-called "Portable Antiquities Scheme's millionth coin" but that is not so as the PAS was set up to deal with non-Treasure finds, but this hoard was classified as Treasure.

Thirdly, because this hoard was not hoiked out loose into a carrier bag like most of them are these days,  but what the metal detectorist left in the ground could be properly excavated (as few of them are, even these days), we can say that the coins came from an archaeological context - which is the opposite of what dealers (like California's Dealer Dave Welsh)  are trying to tell their dullard clients. Neither, used to dealing with loose finds surfacing on the market (from underground) anonymously,   have any significant grasp on the literature and thus are among the least well-placed to judge but continue to bleat their innocence of involvement in looting of archaeological sites. they are decieving themselves, but cannot deceive the rest of us. [PACHI Saturday, 13 December 2014, 'Viking Hoard Was Buried Inside Building'].

Vigntte: One way to keep the archaeological heritage?

Repeat of 2014 Lenborough Hoard hoik thwarted, but not in the name of the best interests of Archaeology

Heritage Action recall the fiasco that was the Lenborough Hoard hoik,

"Unaffected by 18 years of PAS outreach a large group of detectorists pressurised a respectable professional into digging out the Lenborough hoard in a hurried and damaging manner on the blatantly fraudulent grounds that it couldn’t be guarded overnight. PAS later compounded the farce by pretending everything was fine. Was that the low point of PAS’s behaviour, ever? Probably. Nothing like what its founders intended."

but point out that this low point was to be followed by another:

the original heroes of Lenborough, not archaeologists, are [planning to hold] another rally right now (Jan 3rd 2016) on that very field! That’s how inured we are in this country to unacceptably damaging behaviour in plain sight and how utterly ludicrous and inadequate our definition of “good practice” currently is!

Fortunately the weather gods are again on the side of Gaia, the Lenbourgh Return "rallie" was called-off at the last minute because it was too cold even for hoard hoiking:

Re: Rallie 3rd Jan 16 Postby bob79 » Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:22 pm CANCELLED DUE TO WEATHER.

Good.  But no doubt the respite is only temporary, they'll be back for more dosh, I have no doubt.

UPDATE 3rd January 2016

Good one. Heritage Action comment on the "rallie"  cancellation:

Funny innit, how the Met Office has bravely done for Archaeology what Britain’s timid and “voluntary” portable antiquities policy can’t!

PACHI PAS FOI: the PAS Forum, Lenborough and Fantasy Trolling by Nameless Varsovians

Commentary on the material placed in the public domain as a result of a PACHI FOI request from the British Museum from the PAS hidden forum

Topic K 24th -27th December 2014 Comforting Words over the Lenborough Fiasco:

The only other sequence of forum posts which Christopher Denvir made available refer to the Lenborough hoard. Nothing else I say on my blog over thirty months is of any interest to any of them, but the damage done by the Lenborough affair seems to have excited them into some activity. This is started off by Ros Tyrrell in a metal-detecting-forum-qualifying post full of emoticons and exclamation marks on 24th December claiming she was being "slagged off by email" - not true of course, she's playing the victim. I've discussed one aspect of that post earlier, and will return to it again later (and the significance that there was no reaction to what was said in either case). It was David Williams (24th Dec) who said it "all sounds absolutely fine [...] wish I'd been there!" Then,

"I see it's our Warsaw friend doing the criticising and wondering why his emails to you are bouncing?"*

Two points, first "our Warsaw friend" (and worse) is a metal-detectorish way to refer to he-who-shall-not-be-named. I have a name and it is not one totally unknown in archaeological circles and I do not see why it cannot be used here. Secondly  by the time Williams wrote this, it was not just me doing the criticising, there was quite widespread dismay in archaeological circles in general about this time, though RESCUE had not yet produced their account. Thirdly, my emails to Ms Tyrell's office were polite requests for information from an archaeologist interested in the case, what does it say for the transparency of the PAS that Mr Williams is "not surprised" these emails were ignored (indeed being - it seems he thinks - deliberately 'bounced')?  Julie C[assidy] agrees (30th Dec)

"you did a great job. Just ignore the Warsaw moaner. Nothing we do would have made [sic] him happy xxx".

"Warsaw moaner"? What? A major archaeological find is trashed on film by being hurriedly excavated ("it took all day") blindly digging down using a paint-stripping scraper and a carrier bag and tipped out loose on a kitchen table  and another FLO (paid for with YOUR money) says "you did a great job" and somebody looking at that scandalous footage and expressing concerns should instead be "happy" to watch something like that happen. That an archaeologist watching that reacts in any other way than delirium that some more shiny silver discs have been hoiked just makes him some kind of foreign "moaner". This conversation is ridiculous. These are not the standards of best practice the PAS is employed to promote. Peter R[eaville] makes an astounding claim:

I was trolled and insulted by warsaw [sic]  after excavating a couple of hoards - I just emailed him with details of my line managers and the IFA and asked him to report me for unprofessional conduct - he never did (but also never retracted the posts).

"Trolled"? I am really at a loss to understand this whole accusation. Mr Reavill is mentioned on my blog six times, twice with regard to the Kate Hunter piedfort case, once mentioning his blog, once with reference to a 'finds day', and once with reference to a hoard ('Not nighthawking, really - it woz in da day' Tuesday, 8 September 2009).  Could he be talking about the post (Sunday, 21 August 2011) on the 'Baschurch Hoard Screw-up'? Is the raising of cocerns about the aftermath of an archaeological investigation "trolling", or is it something else? Is it "insulting" to comment on a case like this? What is Mr Reavill on about? As for the email with employment details, I recall receiving no such document, and here the question was organizational matters not "professional conduct". I really think some people involved in the metal detecting "partnership" in the UK have extremely thin skins and warped ideas about the nature of archaeological debate. Note again the depersonalising labelling, "warsaw", here it is not even capitalised.

But then Dr Reavill (24th dec) also moots the suggestion, seventeen years into the operation of the PAS of guidelines and excavation kit lists and an emergency contacts page. Unfortunately if this developed into something, we cannot see it in the current FOI. Such texts should surely be consulted outside the narrow confines of a hidden PAS forum.

25th December Christmas Day, Dan Pett reports in this thread a propos nothing at all I can see:

Lovely, I am being trolled by Warsaw and H[eritage] A[ction] at the moment for sticking up for us.

Again the verb "trolled" and depersonalising "Warsaw". Later (25th Dec) Mr Pett added "don't feed the troll" to Ros Tyrrell's announcement that she was not going to address the issues I had raised. It was the BM's Dan Pett's use of the word "troll" at a public meeting where it was recorded that is part of the reasons for this FOI, so it is important to note he is still using it here and in what context. As for the accusation, on 25th December I sent no email to Dan Pett. This "trolling" is a fantasy of Mr Pett, on Christmas Day I made just one blog post with not a troll in sight. As far as I know Heritage Action were focusing on other issues at this time. This is really getting ridiculous, everyone is playing the victim, falsely crying 'wolf'  and refusing to address the archaeological issue at hand.

On 25th December Ros Tyrrell explains she was not going to answer my request for information, because she'd been unable to explain the Cold Brayfield hoard earlier and she did not fancy her chances here either. Certainly there are no comments by Ms Tyrrell under any of my posts on Cold Brayfield, so she'd not made much of an effort to put forward another side of the story here (and I would not think it too difficult a task for a skilled communicator to explain a hole in the ground to a fellow archaeologist). And look at the next bit:

I can't tell the world that there was no money for lifting the hoard because the Bucks Emergency Excavation Fund was spent on the Creslow Burial in Oct. The detectorists breaking the hoard story too early, while I was trying to be on leave, has messed up the plans we had for launching that! Aargh!

Hmm. Why "can't" there be any public acknowledgement of the financial problems caused by Weekend Wanderers targeting a known archaeological site just before Christmas (when their aim of going there is to find something) when there are no funds in the county to deal with anything they might find? I think this raises all sorts of questions about what is responsible detecting, and here we see the PAS deliberately avoiding bringing the subject up in the public domain (see 'What the PAS Does Not Want You to Know About the Creslow Burial?'). What is the problem with the Creslow Burial being mentioned? I do not understand why she thinks this is some kind of topic to be swept under the carpet.

Also, what a nerve she has blaming the detectorists for spoiling the plans to "launch" the (her) find (at the Treasure Report show). This raises a rather repugnant thought, was that the reason it was hoiked out - so enough of it could be scrubbed clean to make a good show for the Minister on Treasure Day?  The manner in which the PAS deliberately manipulates the timing of announcements like this for self-publicity has been noted before. The finders also have rights to brag about their find, Ms Tyrrell was a guest at the rally, now she seems to be depicting it as run for the benefit of the PAS and its annual circle of publicity stunts. Note also the interesting information in this thread that the finder of the hoard had only recorded a small number of finds 'none of them coins' with the Scheme before his million-pound Treasure. This is not the sort of information they generally release, trying to create the impression that many metal detecting finders show many objects from their personal collections each, when that seems from what one can glean from the PAS tables in their annual reports to be almost an exception rather than a rule.

I may return to what Williams says below that about my "support" of the PAS. That made me really angry. The guy obviously has no idea what this is about. Have any of them?

I think anyone who dismisses a fellow worker as merely a "troll", as this crowd are while at the same time bragging about never having read a word of what he has written, really represent all that is rotten in British archaeology when it comes to discussing the issues surrounding portable antiquities collecting and the antiquities trade. If we see this sort of superficial knee-jerkism in the Portable Antiquities Scheme itself - which should be the focal hotbed of debate, then what hope is there for the future of archaeology in Great Britain? Metal detectors and JCBs and grubbing out all the shiny bits?

Before leaving this topic, let us note that nowhere in the entire thread is there any discussion of the issues of archaeological methodology and best practice of the way this hoard was 'excavated'. All the name-calling by PAS professionals has obscured the fact that it was this, and primarily this, which was and is the focus of the comments on my blog. This, the PAS totally ignore. 
  
* By the way, Dr Williams' use of a rising inflection here is incomprehensible  - PAS punctuation perhaps is being affected by prolonged "partnership" with ignorant tekkies.

UPDATE 26th Feb 2015

Nigel Swift reacts to the accusation that Dan Pett was "being trolled by Heritage Action for sticking up for us" 

This is the only recent instance we can find .... Hoard hoiking: it’s not just the doing that’s depressing it’s the saying!

which was mirrored in my own post here 'Academics Lose the Thread in Metal Detector Debate (Again)'. Both of these posts are relevant to the aspects of the Lenborough fiasco being discussed here. But these are both from January 3rd, nine days after Mr Pett's complaint. Quite what it is he is referring to is beyond us to understand. Quite why anyone would want to "stick up for" hoik-blind-paint-scraper-and-carrier-bag-archaeology done by a major archaeological outreach organization is also difficult to understand.

How much of the Staffordshire Hoard has been stolen?

Nigel Swift asks a question that all of the archaeologists joyfully celebrating that ten years ago some glittering Treasures fell into their receptive laps refuse to answer honestly ('How much of the Staffordshire Hoard has been stolen?' Heritage Journal 7th July 2019). Remember the archaeological excitement 'Remarkably all the objects were found in the plough soil, within a few inches of the surface'? Ever wondered why that was? Here's Nigel:

1.) In 2009 when the archaeologists first organised a detecting survey, the new deep seeking machines hadn’t been invented. So in 2012 when they went back they were “stunned” to find another 90 pieces and said: “It’s absolutely amazing. In the last search they used top-quality equipment to go over the area, which they use to find underground stuff in Afghanistan. They were absolutely certain there was nothing else down there.” But actually, what both US and British forces were using at the time (and subsequently) were Ebex 420H machines which have little depth capability (mines are mostly at shallow depth) and are not recommended by the manufactures for use in iron contaminated soil or for finding very small targets.

2.) That second survey was itself unsatisfactory despite having revealed some new objects that were judged part of the original hoard for very few (if any) of the new deep seeking machines were used and most of the searchers had older machines. So it was a “partial” search at best, with the same likely outcome as before: some objects missed.

3.) By contrast, from soon after the first survey all nighttime scruffs could have had the new equipment that was light years ahead of what the archaeologists were describing as “state of the art” for as early as 22 October 2010 we highlighted that “Minelab has just launched the GPX5000….it can easily find small objects at 24 inches” (15 inches below most ploughsoil), and 6 years later on 22 October 2016 we reported Minelab had launched the GPZ which, they said, “could find gold 40% deeper than the GPX“. Against that background the claims by archaeologists of the adequacy of “two detailed surveys” and “geophysics and trial trenching” are sadly and tragically deluded.

4.) I took a series of photos of the site over several weeks in February 2013, showing many footsteps and deep holes which I believe show pretty conclusively that nighthawking was happening. What metal objects did they find so far down? Coke cans and plough fragments, 30 inches below the plough zone? Or bejeweled golden Anglo Saxon objects which surpassed all the others but had to be broken apart and melted down to avoid prosecution? You tell me!

and as always, British ("wottaLottaStuff We Got") archaeologists will studiously avoid addressing that question. Metal detecting artefact hunters "are our partners" and "responsible metal detecting" is "a good thing" that "helps archaeology' and the words Collection-Driven Exploitation of the archaeological record shall never cross the lips of the archaeological mainstream, all complicent with the Ixelles Six and their collector-hooraying nonsenses and carefully staying well away from any discussion that might lead to the conclusion that really we owe it to society and the heritage to change the current laws that fail to regulate the damaging Collection-Driven Exploitation of the archaeological record and the antiquities market. Because it is too much bovver.

The Staffordshire Hoard fiasco was from start to finish botched and bungled, and failed to get the archaeological treatment it deserved. Although the work on the finds is swallowing up huge resources, even that is producing results that are far from satisfactory (that unhappy 'helmet' for example) and quite clearly, no change will occur the more archaeology tries to paper over the cracks by concentrating on the bread and circuses:

Wendy Scott‏ @leicflo 22 godz.22 godziny temu

W odpowiedzi do @PortantIssues @StaffsWMFLO @PotteriesMuseum

But like it or not, its the objects that engage and educate the public.

Bread and Circuses? why not add some ancient aliens too? - I would say archaeological outreach involves presenting actual archaeology, not superficial dumbdown. As for, "its the objects that educate the public" I would respond that objects do not do the educating, it is their presentation that does that - but merely presenting loose objects and their narrativisation has limitations. the problem is that loose OBJECTS are all we've got because Mr Herbert was doing artefact hunting and not a survey, Collection Driven Exploitation is not archaeology. the PAS was set up to get that point across and for 20 expensive years, has utterly failed... see 2003 PAS Aims.

Wendy Scott‏ @leicflo 22 godz.

W odpowiedzi do @PortantIssues
We have had two thorough investigations, what more can you do with a ploughed field?

Actually, quite a lot if you are a real field archaeologist and not just a pretty-finds-fondler.

The time to get serious about dealing with damaging Collection-Driven Exploitation of the archaeological record and the antiquities market had passed well before builder Terry Herbert put on his wellies on a June day back in 2009. Yet, still, with fiasco after fiasco (StaffsHoard, "Gloucestershire Licking Doggie hoard", Lenborough and all the rest) loudly trumpeted as "archaeological successes" in the national press, like climate changer, where we've arguably reached tipping-point, this problem too is getting worse.

PAS's FLO dug a Muddy Hole in Somerset and Called it "Archaeology" [Updated]

In Somerset, a detectorist calling himself "Manic Dev" (Dave Baker) found a hoard of Roman coins (The Kingsdon Hoard) in Feb 2013, and has now put online  some "unseen footage" when the FLO turned up to do an excavation (I use the term very loosely), really Manic's own description is more apposite: "The FLO uncover the rest of the coins". But artefact hunters think that, like the FLO's carrier bag at Lenborough, this ad hoc grubbing around in the mud is proper archaeological practice

Steve Wright1 year ago 
Guys, it’s great to see the coins recovered properly by the experts. Too many times we detectorist shoot ourselves in the foot by uploading videos of amateurs clambering and clawing away at hoard finds and throwing all the targets onto a coat or something. We don’t do ourselves any favours with the critics. Great to see and good luck for more discoveries.

To be honest, looking at this fiasco, I do not think the detectorists could have done much worse. Where's the archaeologist's report about the context of this hoard? Have a look at this video (you might want to skip the excruciating first 41 seconds):

 

Manic Finds a ROMAN COIN HOARD Unseen Footage Posted on You Tube by  Detecting Somerset on 9 Nov 2018
 13,027 views

This awful "how we do it" video showing ill-resourced ad hoc grubbing around in the mud has been seen now by 13000 viewers. In cases like this "better than nothing" should not be an option, neither is "doing it properly" negotiable. If we expect detectorists to always abide by principles of best practice in their handling of the archaeological record, then we need to as well.

UPDATE, 21.06.202
Mr Ferret wrote to me to tell me that he has altered the text under the video, and now states the FLO had nothing to do with the way this hoard was "excavated", I use the term loosely. He reveals the name of the archaeologist, and adds that he was the guy that excavated the Frome Hoard (another keyhole trench) and that indeed the messleft behind was so great that the next time they fond a hoard on the same piece of land, the landowner refused to let the archaeologists onto the farm to dig it properly, so the detectorists hoiked it themselves (I presume the farmer however did not turn up his nose at his share of the proceeds of selling either hoard).

UK Metal Detecting: Fiction Relentlessly Presented as Fact

I was amused to see that about the same time as I pressed "send" on my "Metal Detectorists Get Confused", a new post appeared on The Heritage Journal ('Metal detecting: all’s well that’s Orwell?', 28th March 2015, where both mention detectorist-blogger John Winter's comments on the Lammy gaffe:

fiction relentlessly presented as fact [...] Mr Winter benefits from the fact some of his readers are pretty uninformed so it's easy to play to the gallery. Thus he has just resurrected Minister Lammy's "heroes" statement using the same selective justifications, emphasising the positives and totally ignoring the massive downside, the widespread knowledge theft. That might get you backslapped Mr Winter but it's not being honest with the public.

They go on to make a similar point about the PAS:

Who can fail to notice that much of what it says and does is devoted to delivering a relentless propaganda of success, presumably to promote its own continuance? [...] Metal detecting is simply not as heroic or educated or moral as PAS constantly portrays it to be. Like in the case of Mr Winter, presenting a concocted account is not honest, it's Orwellian. 

The example is given of the Lenborough Hoard Fiasco, which Roger Bland represents as

"a rescue job and Ros, as our sole FLO at event with about a hundred metal detector users, did a heroic job in the circumstances and ensured that all the coins were recovered".

HA comment on this in their usual trenchant form:

Note the use of the H word, heroic, instead of hurried, echoing Minister Lammy. Pure Nineteen Eighty Four! It was a rescue alright, but presented like a corkscrew. Why not tell the public straight out (rather than coyly hinting it to those in the know) that the main peril was from some of those present? And why not admit that the FLO's otherwise inexplicable and otherwise unprofessional decision not to ensure the hoard was guarded overnight was due to pressure and opposition from those around her? Had they been amateur archaeologists the matter would have been dealt with properly. Fact.

Fact, not fiction. Why can we not have the facts about current policies n UK artefact hunting out in the open instead of the boxload of fob-off fictional mantras and refusals to discuss the issues frankly and openly which is all the PAS and its metal detecting "partners" have to offer stakeholders?

Will Archaeologists Break Forced Silence?

Heritage Action, ever hopeful that 'bonkers isn't forever' write of "Metal detecting: New Year new hope?" (HJ 28/12/2014)

 In parts of the US 90% of Native American archaeological sites have been vandalised. The Government is trying to stop it. In parts of Britain more than 90% of archaeological sites have been metal detected. The government isn’t trying to stop it. You might think they and British archaeologists don’t care, but they do. It’s just that having bottled out of legislating and set up a voluntary system that has largely failed there’s not a lot of appetite for acknowledging the reality. But silence shouldn’t be taken as acquiescence. Most archaeologists do want the activity legally regulated. [...] over the past few years the mood music has definitely been changing. Dare we hope that 2015 will be the year when a lot of archaeologists come clean and openly declare that the Emperor has no clothes and that the activity needs to be legally regulated? 

There has been some discussion among archaeologists of several examples of hoard-hoiking where greed has got the better of ethics, following on from the Crosby Garrett helmet fiasco, the Hollingbourne ('A20') grave trashing, the 'Dunelme hoard' hoik of September and now the Lenborough Hoard  The author quotes an archaeology professor that has come out and said what many are privately thinking about artefact hunting and its effects and asks:

Will 2015 reveal lots of archaeologists and academics willing to echo his words? Or will it take another five or ten years?

Treasure Ransoms in the UK: Cheating the System

Heritage Action's Saturday-morning-spot-on-metal-detecting this week is on Treasure ransoms: the "reward" British citizens pay treasure hunters to obey the law on reporting Treasure finds ('How many British treasure payouts are far too high? All of them?' 4th June 2016)

Someone found a hoard at Lenborough and got rewarded. What’s not to like? Well, two things: First, he was paid a mind-boggling £675,000, far more than was needed or warranted or could be afforded or other countries would have paid. Second, the Treasure Committee still could and should have slashed the reward for “bad practice” (he claimed, fatuously, the hoard couldn’t be guarded overnight so had to be dug up hurriedly, thus destroying much knowledge). But they didn’t, they almost never do. Why is our reward system like this? For one simple, shameful, unpublicised reason: zillions of UK detectorists make it clear that if they don’t get maximum payouts they won’t declare treasure finds.

Heritage Action point out that the Lenborough fiasco was conducted fully within Britains (crappy) and they are too gracious to note that in addition this disgrace took place not only under the eyes of an archaeologist but also apparently with the full participation of that archaeologist. They then ask:

What about the rewards the Treasure Committee also gives to criminals? 

They discuss the case where illegal artefact hunters clandestinely invaded a site under excavation and did a little digging on their own behalf and pocketed what they found.

If the criminals had [found any Treasure item] (did they?) and “re-found” it elsewhere they’d be given full market value. Does that happen much? Well put it this way: if you were a nighthawk in Britain (or even a visiting one with goods to dispose of) what would YOU do? It’s beyond denial, we have a treasure system which showers excessive rewards not just on the partly deserving but also the blatantly undeserving and the downright criminal. But you won’t read about that in the papers either. Move along now. Nothing to see here.

What is so irritating is that it turns out that the proceedings of the coroner's inquest are open to rather free interpretation, some Coroners consider it their duty to establish the precise  circumstances of the discovery of the items subject to inquest, while others (like the Kent Coroner for the Medway region who refused to accept evidence from myself in a recent case which was apparently in effect tried in secret) do not see it as in any way important to establish that something was found in the manner claimed by the finder. Had the so-called Crosby Garrett Helmet been a 'Treasure' there is no guarantee that the Coroner would have been any more analytical of the finders' bald account than their obliging "partner" PAS was. 
 

Lenborough All Over Again: Norfolk Roman Pewter Deposit Shown Being Crudely Dug Up on Tekkie Video

One of the many post-Pandemic rally videos, this one posted by a foreign artefact hunter ("Leigh" aka "Bondi Treasure Hunter") energetically emptying part of the archaeological record at an undisclosed place in Norfolk into his pockets:

.

Ar

Posted on You Tube by Bondi Treasure Hunter 321K subscribers, 'two months ago'

.

Comments make it clear that among the 10k viewers so far are a lot that approve of this form of private exploitation of the resource and also the damage being done: Kelly S 2 months ago " What an amazing hunt. The owners did their homework to know it was an archaeological site. That would have been amazing to hunt there". A commercial artefact hunting rally in Britain targeting a known site again. 

                screenshots from You Tube

This was posted two months ago. There are no comments under the video by British archaeologists saying to "Leigh"s 321000 subscribers that this is bad. So I'll do it for them. This is bad. This is no way to treat the British archaeological record. 

But it's OK you might think, they have an archaeologist with a tattoo and look-at-me bright crimson hair clashing with apple-green glasses frames on the site overseeing the whole process. So when one of them irresponsibly digs really, really deep following a signal down below ploughgirl depth, said archaeologist (who is this? She's not introduced) is shown sitting calmly beside the narrow, blind-dug hole with the broken bit of pewter plate on its edge explaining that she does not know what the guy has dug right into the middle of but talking to the Treasure hunters about Roman hoards. 

Now this is the point where archaeological good practice would entail giving the bloke (ir)responsible a good bollocking for digging so deep (against the Code, "voluntry innit?") necessitating taking special and expensive extra measures, infilling the exposed feature and contacting the landowner to get him to park a piece of agricultural machinery over the spot to secure it from unauthorised interference and shut off activity from that part of the field until this (potential) national Treasure findspot can be properly dealt with.

After all, what could this be? There are archaeological precedents for this being a deposit of vessels at one end or other, or in the middle of, an inhumation grave, where probably due to this soil preservation of bones and organics would be poor (like the 'sandmen' of the cemetery at Sutton Hoo nearby). It could be a deposit in the burial chamber of a chamber grave, or even a boat burial where the covering mound has been ploughed away. it could be a single isolated hoard buried well away from other features in an empty landscape, or like the deposits across Northern Europe, one of many groups of material deposited at a particular significant place. Obviously to investigate that context, a larger area will need to be opened and carefully explored, with the appropriate sampling techniques (for example soil phosphates) employed. That is what an archaeologist contracted by a commercial artefact hunting rally organizer should be explaining (as "outreach") to the tubby ageing blokes gathered around that hole, and then professional ethics would bind them to ensuring that this was set in motion. Otherwise, why be there?

But then it turns out from the film that there is a "rally archaeologist" - though it is odd that when you see them in action, there is a group of blokes in Joan Allen teeshirts, and guys with "East of England rallies" logos on their shirts in hi-vis jackets. What kind of archaeologists are these? Ms Crimson Hair has vanished. The blokes use string and nails to lay out a wholly inadequate 1-meter square hole and begin lowering the soil in "20 cm" spits around the central hoik hole. They are shown using pinpointers to make sure no "artefacts" are lost. Hang the stratigraphy eh? Anyway when they get (in how much time?) to the artefact bearing level... (ie an arbitrary horizontal slice through the top of whatever deposit the  targeted artefacts are in and under) we see in the side of the trench the bottom of the, quite shallow, ploughsoil in the side of their sondage. Its more than half way up the trench wall! The excavators have apparently dug through it, even their hole was not big enough to detect the edges of any feature the objects were in and excavate it stratigraphically. I wonder if this was a surprise to them. Then we see that their hurried scraping and levering (yes! see video) has damaged the majority of the rim of the lower vessel, that's apart from the big fragment broken off the top one by the finder. We also see at least four other vessels in the metre-square sondage.. so clearly the deposit is more complex than the detectorists hoik hole had indicated. Quelle surprise, eh?

Screenshots from YouTube. This. is. Not. Archaeology. 
[but I doubt many British archaeologists would dare to say it out loud to the Public]

This is another Lenborough fiasco. The site was not secured, both the context of deposition and the objects themselves were stripped of some (probably much) of their information value by the unprofessional, irresponsible and impatient manner in which an attempt was made to recover them quickly. Once again. This is Euston Estate hoard, apparently from September 2022. There is another vide of its digging shown on the commercial rally organiser's webpage here (and here on You Tube) It is an incredibly uninformative and disjointed presentation of very little documentary value - but why is one of the investigators shown with an obscured (pixelated) face - but not butt crack?  

I hope we hear more about this find in the future. You know, some actual discussion. 

Post scriptum:

Here is my You Tube comment to the Treasure Hunter's video since nobody in the UK seems bothered to pay any attention to the issues raised by the limited scope f the information the viewing public is getting here.   

PortAntissues

0 seconds ago

This was posted two months ago. There are no comments under the video by British archaeologists saying to "Leigh"s 321000 subscribers that this is bad. So I'll do it for them. This is bad. Huge damage is being done to the archaeological record by commercial rallies like this and Treasure hunting in general. This is no way to treat the British archaeological record, totally selfish, disrespectful and irresponsible (that detectorist who dug into the pewter vessel hoard in an untouched archaeological feature was well below plough level - ignoring the established Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales). How much did the subsequent excavation and conservation of the objects the finders damaged cost, and who foots the bill? Did the rally organizers who profited from this "business" cover all the costs consequent on the side effects of the activities they are responsible for? Where are the many non-Treasure finds shown here that were removed from this archaeological site? Scattered in private hands? If the ones Bondi Treasure Hunter displays so proudly at the end of the film left the country, can we see the export licence? (because they need one). How are they being stored?

Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Tekkies and their Culture 24 comments

My comment to the Culture24 article by Ben Miller ('A tantalising mystery: The story behind the huge Anglo-Saxon coin hoard found in Buckinghamshire') was a pretty tame one. I wrote:

So, basically what the FLO is saying is that it was "impossible" to secure the site and organize a proper investigation. Yet that is what the Treasure Act Code of Practice says ALL finders should be doing, so why not this one specifically, with the FLO actually on the site ? FLOs are paid to get best practice, why was it not practised here? Other hoards ARE secured and excavated slowly, and we get far more information out of them than a Sainsbury's bag of loose coins. 

I see nothing at all wrong with that. It is short, factual, to the point and indicating the discrepancies in current policy and practice. And the reaction of so-called 'responsible metal detectorists"? Did they too express concern about the free-for-all we see on the Lenborough videos? No, actually they did not. One can quite clearly pick out the detectorists in that thread of 15 comments following mine, they are the ones that cannot use capitals and axillary verbs. They come over as a group of people intent only on denial and acting aggressively when an issue is raised. They seem also oblivious to place and context and the fact that readers of cultural media such as Culture 24 will not all see the world through the same yobbish eyes as themselves.

andrew fudge, salisbury 12 January 2015 06:42  Barford go get a life . You should take up another hobby you sad sad man

Shane Buchanan, Nottingham 12 January 2015 06:53 also has some 'helpful' observations which put detectorists in as good a light as they deserve:

Barford it clearly states they couldn't make it secure and was a risk of night hawkers [sic]. If they a [sic] FLO on site he [sic] knows what's best for that situation. They [sic] could be any reason y [sic] it couldn't of [sic] been left in the ground and secured. Just stop being so negative you bell end [sic]

" paul coleman, southampton" 12 January 2015 08:52 agrees:

An FLO made the only decision she could make given the situation! She made the comments at the time that she really would have liked another option, but there wasn't one. She's an FLO, NOT A DINNER LADY.

"daniel bamsey, dorset" 12 January 2015 09:00

You can't please all the people all the time, they done [sic] the best they could. Would you have travelled there on a sunday a few days before Christmas to do a 'proper' excavation? Even if you would [sic] have the chances of it going missing before you got to it would have been vast. Too much hate towards detectorist's [sic] because after all this would never have been found, like so many treasures that sit in museums all over the country, had it not been for good, honest detectorist's [sic].

First of all, some brainy individual organized and took money for an event to search for archaeological and historical artefacts on a known archaeological site in the few days before Christmas and then decided that when an archaeological deposit was found by one of his paying diggers, that the timing was inconvenient to do it properly, that is hire a team to excavate and record the deposit carefully. The site of course could have been secured, where there is a will there is a way. It may cost the participants a bit more effort and resources, but there is a million pound hoard of national significance involved and they are "all responsible detectorists", so why cut corners? Whose responsibility is the finding of this under these circumstances? What is "responsibility"? Those people should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.  Mr Bamsey, neither the organizers, the finder, the landowner nor FLO did "the best they could", because they could obviously have done a good deal more than they did. And two of them are going to be holding their hands out in the next few months for their million pound "reward" for what they did and did not do.

Of course to do the best, you'd have to know what that is, and it is the FLO's job to jolly well make sure they do. Here she failed to do that, but obviously is going to be the last person to admit it.  I am perfectly at rights to criticise her for that - and she is perfectly at rights to show where I am wrong here or via the PAS website, but instead she elected to do a garbled interview for a Culture24 journalist.

Peter Atkinson, lincs 12 January 2015 09:02 reckons:

Barford, if it had been secured and excavated over a period of 3 days instead of one you still would have found fault with something. Your life is spent attacking UK metal detectorists and PAS from Poland

He then gives a link to a text by John Howland (see below) on a US detectorist's blog and asks "any reader of you [sic] comment to read this about you". Why, is not explained; there is no discussion in the place indicated about the policies that led to this fiasco - just personal attacks and false insinuations directed at me as usual. So, in fact, nothing related to my comment above.

Yes, Mr Atkinson is right, due to the idiotic timing of the event, securing the site just "three days" would have meant a team of excavators turning up on December 25th, Christmas Day. That is obviously unsatisfactory and I would not be the only one criticising them for organizing it in such a manner unbefitting the gravity of the situation.

It is the organizers of this commercial event and landowner who created this problem (including by their choosing such a time for it), and it is their responsibility, and theirs alone, to sort it out, by organizing a proper team and securing the site until they can deal with the problem in a more satisfactory manner. If not, then in my opinion, the Treasure ransom should be cut.

"Steve", Cambridgeshire 12 January 2015 10:02 however has got the right idea. He agrees with me that the site could have been secured ("A hoard such as this needed to be lifted in one block when the area around the findspot was opened up and excavated properly"). Yep. 100% agreement. He's the only one though.

The so-called "Heritage Trust of Great Britain" (12 January 2015 10:31) want to express "a big ‘well done’ to Ms Tyrrell, and all present on the day" and tip a nod to "the dedication of the British Museum" too. Alistair Mackay, Rothwell, Northamptonshire (Coinmac the coin dealer) 12 January 2015 11:00 also wants to congratulate Ms Tyrrell and the detectorists involved. He suggests that the FLO, as "the person on site (not sat at a desk in Warsaw)" would have used "her best judgement, keeping in mind the location, weather, time of year, and the fact that, under the circumstances, the find would rapidly become public knowledge". But if the site is secured and a proper team put in place, the fact it is public knowledge is neither here nor there. The archaeological heritage belongs to everybody, so why would we be in favour of keeping information from them? It is the public that pay for the PAS.

No metal detectorist gathering would be complete without the ubiquitous John Howland from Poole and his usual foul mouth and ad hominem remarks. Here he is in full flow (remember the content of the comment I posted to which he pretends to be replying):

The problem [sic] with Paul Barford is that one cannot believe anything he writes or utters about detectorists, or the PAS, owing to his ingrained hatred of both. His widely derided and discredited 'Artifact Erosion Counter' has caused derision to be heaped on archaeology in spades. Compared to Ms Tyrell, he is an undistinguished heritologist; 'archaeologist' being too grander [sic] word to describe this incessant yapper. 

Basically I think readers of Culture24 can probably read and think for themselves, so do not really need to be 'told' what to believe about artefact hunting or the estimate of Heritage Action on the scale of non-recording. What I actually wrote in my comment can be checked out from other sources.

There was an opportunity here for "responsible metal detectorists" to show their concern for doing things correctly and by the book and not causing damage as a result of their hobby. There was an opportunity to show that there are grounds for believing the constant optimistic reassurances and assertions of the PAS about their 'partners'. But...

TAKE A GOOD LOOK at this behaviour, for these are precisely the sort of people the PAS wants to grab more and more millions of public quid to make into the "partners" of the British Museum, archaeological heritage professionals and to whom they want us all to entrust the exploitation of the archaeological record. Take a good look and decide what you think about that as a "policy".