Friday Retrospect: The Cold Brayfield Affair

The winding road to the debate on
UK policy on artefact hunting

A few weeks ago, the Buckinghamshire FLO was moaning to her colleagues "[I] prefer not to have any dealings with PB. I wasted ages explaining myself over the Cold Brayfield Hoard and was ignored and misunderstood!". I am at a loss to know to what she is referring and, quite frankly resent that - if she cannot explain a hole in the ground to a fellow archaeologist, what hope is there that she can explain best practice to artefact hoikers? There was some coverage of this rather disturbing incident on my blog, and just to put Ms Tyrrell's allegations in some sort of context I give here the links to all the posts I made so readers can see just how much time Ros Tyrrell devoted on this blog to "explaining"  this situation to my readers. If you look through the posts, you will find the comment (in the post 'Cold Brayfield Questions that will not go away', 6 November 2008):

I recently addressed these questions to the two FLOs involved (twice). All I received in reply was some generally dismissive statement of "the sort of whispers that accompanies this sort of find".

The inability of the PAS to interact properly with criticism of what is going on in the interstices between policy and practice, hope and reality, has a long history. Now, I do not have anywhere to hand those emails any more (maybe we should do an FOI request for them too to get at what Ms Tyrrell really said to me?) but it does not look to me that even offline she made much of an effort to "explain" anything to me  [She may resend them as a comment here if she contests that]. I think her evoking Cold Brayfield as an excuse not to address the very real issues raised about the Lenborought affair, is just that - an excuse.

It is therefore worth returning to Cold Brayfield as it is quite a symptomatic case, raising a number of issues which are still unresolved today, seven years later. One of the reasons for that is the failure - indeed refusal - of the PAS to discuss these issues openly, as we have seen in the case of Lenborough. I think many of the things I said with regard to Cold Brayfield six and seven years ago can be said today. So what change has the Portable Antiquities Scheme actually achieved on the ground for all those millions of quid of public outreach? Is this why they do not want to engage with the issues that are raised?

'English Detectorists Say They Dug a Metre into Roman Site in the Dark'
Wednesday, 29 October 2008

'The Washington Lawyer and the Metal Detectorists' Thursday, 30 October 2008

'What would the PAS say?' Thursday, 30 October 2008

'Treasure Annual Reports: just "inconvenient"?', Sunday, 2 November 2008 (note comments about a separate Treasure archive - later abandoned, they were added to the PAS database alongside a totally different category of material)

'Cold Brayfield Questions that will not go away', Thursday, 6 November 2008

'Having a Chat with Central Searchers?' Thursday, 6 November 2008 (Secretive metal detectorists - instant ban for Marcus)

Incidental mention here: 'Some Thoughts on Illegal Artefact Hunting in England', Saturday, 8 November 2008

This Coroner is helpful: 'Cold Brayfield Inquest' Wednesday, 12 November 2008

More questions raised, 'The New Treasure Report' Wednesday, 19 November 2008

Incidental mention, 'Welsh Treasure System Failure' Thursday, 8 January 2009

Incidental mention, 'Central Searchers Dislikes Breeches and Will Avoid Them in Future', Wednesday, 9 June 2010.

What is it that Ros Tyrrell, the PAS FLO for the county concerned, wanted to 'explain' to me back in 2008? Did she want to explain something, or explain away something on behalf of the BM's metal-detecting "partners"? Because that, I admit, I would be incapable of "understanding", coming as it would be, from a publicly funded archaeological outreach scheme.

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.

Central Searchers Dislikes Breeches and Will Avoid Them in Future

.

The metal detecting group Central Searchers had put out an announcement that they were going to search ridge and furrow and were criticised by Heritage Action and others for it. It seems that these people clearly still really do not understand why their actions raised concern. I wonder if all else fails, whether the PAS will explain it to them? Meanwhile, just to make sure there will be no further open discussion of what they are up to these people announce on their website...

“From now on Dig Details will be a limited brief description of the site so these sort of allegations can not be copied and used in a slanderous way against the club or club members this is in the interest of protecting our members and sites from such groups [...]”.

So they will keep the details secret to "protect" themselves against being discussed? So what happened to that "transparency" other collectors are wanting? Why, actually can one not discuss openly where commercial artefact rallies are being held in the UK? Is this not in the public interest? What do the PAS say about this then? Is the problem in fact that if groups like Heritage Action say "hang on a minute, is that a suitable location for a commercial rally?" some people who might fork out money to go (it is a commercial event after all) might have second thoughts ("hang on, IS that a suitable place for responsible artefact hunters like me to be going to a commercial artefact hunting rally?").

 
So Central Searchers goes underground, making it yet another of those secretive organizations whose members feel they have to hide away in shame from scrutiny. In fact they have always been underground, reference to past posts here record what happened when I tried to register with this secret organization's forum to find out more about a Treasure find (Cold Brayfield) that was being (shock horror, actually being) discussed. I was banned before I could even gain access to ask a single question of these "heritage heroes". So much for transparency then, eh?

 
Let us note that these people state that the organization of a commercial treasure hunt here was ethical and above board because “as always a Finds Liaison Officer has an open invite to any of these sites to record anything that comes off". But that is not what the PAS Code of practice for commercial metal detecting rallies says should be the basis of the collaboration ("partnership") of PAS with their organizers.

Anyway Richard and Gill Evans from Wellingborough (owners of said group) seem to be on the warpath, there's a thread over on a detecting forum about their doings being mentioned on "a certain Mr Barford's blog". They forgot to mention that it is called "Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues" - are they such horrific words to utter among responsible artefact hunters, I wonder? Anyhow they are seeking legal advice it seems. Good for them, let them find out what fair use and in the public interest consists of. Maybe their solicitor will read bits of this blog and decide whether he wants to represent such people as hide away on a secret forum. Anyway to stop people from being told what they are up to they have now added this to their website:

ALL CONTENT ON THIS AND ASSOCIATED WEB SITES IS
PROPERTY OF RICHARD AND GILL EVANS OWNERS OF CENTRAL SEARCHERS. NO CONTENT MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MEDIA WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION, DOING THIS IS A BREECH OF COPYRIGHT.

The word, dear Mr and Mrs Evans is "breach", as in "once more unto the breach..." (breeches are a kind of trousers as anyone in the UK who went to skool shuld no).

By the way "Big Mick" (apparently a central Searcher unafraid of the Black Helicopters) need not send his illiterate threatening comments to this blog, his messages will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities.

Vignettes: The difference between breeches and breaches.
.

Welsh Treasure System Failure

Another treasure find from the United Kingdom, land of opportunity for artefact hunting metal detector users, is in the news. Early to Middle Bronze Age items found at Rossett in Wrexham county, North Wales in 2004 (the so-called Burton Hoard just off the A483) were declared treasure and the three finders William May, Joseph Perry and Peter Skelly, all from Liverpool, shared the £85,000 reward with farmer Derry Willis.

Farmer Willis likes treasure hunters, one of them thanked him and the other landowners recently “for their hospitality over the years; they’ve looked after us with cups of tea and have even phoned us when the field is being ploughed.”

So after a recent ploughing the three men were back on the treasure field in late August 2007 with a “a hi-tech computerised metal detector”. Just two inches down, and ten metres away from the original find, they found more gold, declared Treasure in an inquest last month. The Wrexham Mail notes dryly “The addition to the Burton Hoard has now prompted the National Museum of Wales to commission a survey of the field which could lead to further discoveries”.

This is ridiculous. Three responsible guys do what the law requires, and report a find which goes – as it should – to a public collection. The findspot will have been recorded in the archaeological record. Now it turns out that although money was raised to buy the objects, not enough fnds were made available to investigate the site to give the recovered objects a proper context (which anybody can see should include making sure that there were no more related finds lying just two inches down ten metres away). The whole point of the Treasure Act and its Code of Practice was not just to get sparkly goodies into museum collections (otherwise they could be bought – and possibly cheaper – on eBay). It was to allow the recovery of archaeological information about their contexts of deposition. The fact that more gold items are coming out of this field shows that in the case of the Burton hoard, we do not have as much information about that as we might have. Also we are now having another Treasure inquest about objects that should have been included in the first one. How many more associated items are there in this part of the field?

We saw the same thing happened in the case of the Newark Torc where the context of deposition remains totally unclear (by the way the PAS never did clarify the position over that airplane wreck search permit). We saw that after the Cold Brayfield hoard was reported just a tiny hole was all the local archaeologists could manage to try and find its context of deposition (failing here too to do so). To my mind, if there was gold left lying in farmer Derry Willis’ fields, there are a number of ways an enterprising “nighthawk” could increase their chances of finding it. This is why the Stixwould hoard was revisited under archaeological control to recover what the nighthawks had not yet had the time to pinch. At Burton, they’ve had three years. It seems to me that some better archaeology-oriented strategy needs adopting here to make sure that the archaeological aspects of the reported discoveries do not lag behind the "glomworthy shiny goodies" ones.
.

The New Treasure Report

"Lotsa luvvery treasures" in the BM today as the 2005-6 Treasure report is launched coincidentally on the same day as the 2008 review of the future of the PAS. See my earlier comments here. Why they've even got some Treasure on show... an Anglo-Saxon mount which is "probably from Hampshire" another from "somewhere in Essex". Great.

From what I saw of it before the PAS server collapsed this morning, the new Treasure report looks to be a hefty and lavishly illustrated account of glittering prizes brought to light largely as a result of British policies of encouraging “metal detectorists” to engage with the past by selectively denuding the archaeological record of collectables. The material presented in this report is however just the tip of the iceberg. English, Welsh and Northern Irish law define a very narrow range of items which the state regards as national 'treasure's. The vast majority of archaeological finds do not qualify. They can if the finder wants to and the landowner agrees be dug up anyhow and any time without record, bought and sold without record, discarded and melted down as “scrap” without anyone being any the wiser. Whole archaeological sites can be collected away without anyone batting an eyelid. But no matter, the BM has done well in saving a lot of the gold and silver bits, one might say.

But how much of the information that was lost when they were taken from the ground has been saved in a reliably documented form and actually made available? We saw the other day that the inquest into one Treasure find simply did not address the detail of the circumstances of discovery and there remain lingering doubts that all was as was described - a lot of questions nobody wants to answer. In the case of the Stixwould hoard, there is considerable doubt whether the whole find has made it into the public domain, it would seem not (thus skewing the sample for any future research on the material). Then of course there are the Treasures which are never reported by their finders at all and simply sold off.

These are just three cases out of several hundred found by artefact hunters and collectors which happen to have caught my attention in the past few days. To what degree would investigation throw up similar doubts about some, or even many, of the rest? The experience of the FLO involved in the Cold Brayfield find led him to comment to me that “whispers” tend to accompany many such finds. I wonder how forthcoming the new Treasure report will be found to be on such cases when one has the liberty to leaf through it and maybe confront its narrative with other sources.

Also on show at the BM today is the Snodland hoard also found in 2006, but unlike its near contemporary at Cold Brayfield, duly reported at the moment of discovery and excavated properly.* A perhaps significant difference is this was an accidental find made by a member of the public in earthmoving, and not by artefact hunters and collectors.

There is good news in the launch for those who make their living selling metal detectors and portable antiquities. Apparently the increase in number of treasure finds has been helped, the press material cheerfully warbles, by "an increase in the the popularity of metal detectors" in the UK. Now this may be hopelessly 'unprogressive' of me, but I would have thought that a decade of archaeological outreach instilling "best practice" in the use of the archaeological record in the British public should be aiming to reduce and not increase the degree to which it is dug up willy nilly as a source of collectables for entertainment and profit. To what degree is the Portable Antiquities Scheme and archaeological institutions in Britain actually doing anything at all towards these aims?

*all those disbelieving US ancient coin collectors looking in, please note the Roman tile all around this hoard, another one to have been found actually on a Roman site.

Vignette: Odyssey's 'Volvo' Treasure, their real reason, they say, for diving off the Spanish coast recently..

Milton Keynes: Metal Detected Treasure Lost its Context

John Couchman, of Hemel Hempstead, and Lorraine Ayton, of Bedford, carelessly lost the contact address of two metal detecting "acquaintances" of theirs, and only knew their names were Stuart and Tracey and that they had left the country. Now "Stew" and "Trace" (I wonder if they were Central Searchers?) moved away from the area but not before asking John and Loraraine to sell a few items for them which they had found in summer 2004. The sad thing is that although the sale raised 205 quid, Couchman and Ayton did not know where to send the money. Now if you are out there Stew and Trace, John and Lorraine have some money for you. But they are not the only people who'd like to talk to you about those finds. The hoard of 15 Bronze Age items which was bought on eBay by Jeroen Zuiderwijk, a Dutch collector was repatriated and declared Treasure by Milton Keynes Coroner Rodney Corner (the same one as at Cold Brayfield) at an inquest in 2005. The only trouble is, nobody knows where "Stew and Trace" found the loot, and so the landowner for example cannot receive their share of the reward. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, what Stew and Trace did was very naughty. By law, they are supposed to report such a find within 14 days of discovery, not get somebody else to flog it off on the Internet. Milton Keynes does not seem to be having much luck with "metal detectorists".

How many more national treasures are being dug up and sold off abroad on the sly by anonymous metal detectors like "Stew" and "Trace"?

Perhaps the story had a happy end, maybe a Central Searcher "metal detectorist" found Stew and Trace's forwarding address in the end and the matter has been cleared up. I really do not see how it is possible that the finders could not be traced. It's a bit lame to get the stuff back from Holland and all you can say about its context and archaeological significance is "It does, though, throw up evidence of the Bronze Age and that there was bronze-smithing in the area." Duh!

Photo: The "Stew and Trace" Bronze Age hoard. Found in 2004 "somewhere in England".

Cold Brayfield Inquest

A few days ago, as the result of my request for further information, I received from Rodney Corner (HM Coroner for the County and  District of Milton Keynes) a copy of some of the documentation of the inquest 28th October 2008 concerning Treasure 2006/T.631 (Cold Brayfield). I found it disturbing in its implications for the light it sheds on the way “metal detecting” finds which fall into the category of Treasure cases are being handled in England. I am grateful to the Coroner for his helpful approach, rarely met these days in the UK heritage debate where portable antiquities are concerned.

The document reveals that the story presented at the inquest was more or less what the newspaper account of the inquest had reported. The date of the find was accepted (without query it seems) as 1st December – despite the fact that we have seen in the local metal detecting milieu there are accounts which suggest it was earlier. This is significant as by the terms of the Treasure Act, to stay within the law and obtain the reward the finder has 14 days to report the discovery and we find from the inquest documentation that the report was only made “on the 14th December 2006” (why?).

So what evidence was required to confirm this later date of discovery? Well, interestingly enough not confirmatory evidence from the landowner when these people by their own account had been digging three foot deep holes in their land. From the documentation I was given, it appears that the landowner was not represented at the inquest. I was surprised to learn from the Coroner (pers. Comm. 17.11.08) that evidence that the consent of the landowner was obtained “is not strictly necessary […] for a Treasure Inquest”. Now if that is the case that illegal metal detecting can also be rewarded by the state administered Treasure process of which the coroner's inquest is the first major step, it is nothing short of scandalous.

In my naivety I assumed that the function of a coroner’s inquest (like that which attends the discovery of a dead body) was concerned with ascertaining the exact circumstances surrounding the discovery. It seems not. Comparing the document which I received with what is currently being said by local metal detectorists suggests this one was a rather superficial rubber-stamp affair. Three witnesses were called: the finders, Phillips and Plasom and Watters (who was not even there when the Treasure was found) and a letter from the BM was read. I presume that this was accompanied by the BM report by Richard Abdy and Richard Hobbs which has been discussed here and by David Gill.

How strange then to read that the inquest found that the finders had “with the aid of metal detectors found between 1456 and 1471 coins” (the BM report only catalogues 1456), but that they had been “deposited in an ancient rubbish pit or midden”. This is despite the fact that the BM report, presumably submitted as evidence and drawing on documentation sent by the investigating archaeologist (Watters) states clearly that “due to the fact that the find had already been removed prior to investigation a stratigraphical relationship could not be established”. The fact that the finders had removed almost the entire find before reporting it is nowhere mentioned in the Coroner’s report. Neither is there any mention of whether proper procedure had been followed. So in the English Treasure process, whose responsibility is establishing this, if not the Coroner’s?

We have seen that there is doubt in the local metal detecting milieu whether the whole hoard was in the hands of the authorities. This is a claim that should have been made known to the authorities and not just dismissed as "just one of those whispers that accompanies finds of this type" and investigated. This question was apparently not discussed at the inquest. No evidence was sought that the bronze stains in the pot corresponded to the volume of coins presented to the authorities for example. The old Treasure Trove laws of the time of Edward I were far more exacting than the 1996 Treasure Act. In his seu Commentarius juris Anglicani, the anonymous jurist known as ‘Fleta’ writing about 1290 tells us that in his day:

"The coroner and sheriff, gaining knowledge of the finding of treasure, ought diligently to enquire who were the finders and the nature and amount of treasure, whether any had been carried away and all particulars of those in possession and whether there had been any concealment by anyone. The coroner must then attach all those having any knowledge of the treasure and hold anyone carrying it off until the coming of the justices..."

The current procedure seems a step backward with regard to the policies of Edward the First.

Vignette: Edward I who one suspects would have known of an effective means of dealing with non-reporting "metal detectorists".
.

Some Thoughts on Illegal Artefact Hunting in England

Has the institution of the Portable Antiquities Scheme really reduced the looting of archaeological sites for collectables ? (see my comments on Derek Fincham’s recent article here). The Oxford Archaeology survey of the extent of this problem seems to have hit (entirely foreseeable) problems in gathering data and has seriously overrun its original deadline. Until these results are available for detailed scrutiny, discussion on the metal detecting forums around a recent news item are revealing.

The East Anglian Daily Times reports that farmer John Browning of Icklingham in Suffolk in southeastern England has had his fields targeted three times in the past five days by trespassing night time metal detectorists looking for portable antiquities. He says that over the years at least 50 people have been caught illegally metal detecting on his land and penalised but believes more than 100 incidents have gone unpunished.

“Earlier this year three men were fined for visiting the site equipped to steal. They were spotted on the site by Mr Browning who was using a special nightscope. Ricky McCabe, 34, David Miller, 38, and Alan Chapman, 37, all from Chadwell St Mary, each admitted going to a field equipped to steal. All three were ordered to pay £250 in costs, McCabe and Miller fined £250 and Chapman fined £500 when they appeared before a judge at Ipswich Crown Court in March."

Mr Browning is of course the farmer who was robbed by the metal detectorists who found the items known as the Icklingham Bronzes (now in Shelby White’s collecting in the US). The mega-bucks the stolen and illegally exported bronzes fetched on the US market mean that metal detectorists have been turning up at this site regularly. Icklingham is a scheduled site. Mr Browning is a responsible landowner, concerned about the archaeological heritage his land holds, and will not permit artefact hunting on his land anyway. So driven by self-interest, the thought of exciting discoveries and profits, some of these “unsung heroes of the UK’s heritage” go out at night without his permission. Mr Browning has taken to devoting a large amount of nocturnal time searching for these illegal metal detectorists and catching them at it, with some success. Heritage Action has suggested it is Mr Brown who is more deserving of the title ‘heritage hero’ than metal detector users.

Mr Brown’s problems with these people is however clearly the visible tip of a more insidious iceberg. As a knowledgable local metal detectorist remarked on a detecting forum:

Trouble is, it is not just Mr. Browning's farm there that has the problem. Neighbouring land, land all around that area is regularly targeted, it is not far from West Stow, Mildenhall, etc. Hawkers go all over there. It is just that Mr. Browning is on a mission with them, and is constantly trying to catch them with all sorts of equipment etc. Good on him, but that is why you hear about more convictions with him and his land. That wouldn't stop it on the surrounding fields and land all around that part of Suffolk.

This suggests that the problem is more widespread in the area. (I wonder whether she reported this to the Oxford Nighthawking survey?)

A few days ago I mentioned that Norman Smith, the organizer of the rally at which the Stixwould coins were found had on one of the forums made some additional comments on illegal metal detecting. This seems an apposite time to draw attention to them. He wrote:

MY PARTING COMMENT ON THIS SUBJECT, WHICH I MAKE IN FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT ARCHAEOLOGISTS VISIT THIS SITE, IS THAT DURING THE OXFORD ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT ON NIGHTHAWKING I VISITED LONDON ON TWO OCCASIONS AT MY OWN EXPENSE TO DEFEND THIS WONDERFUL HOBBY OF OURS AND DURING THE DISCUSSIONS ON THE CODE OF PACTICE FOR RALLIES DID THE SAME THING, BUT WHEN I SHOUTED FROM THE ROOFTOPS THAT DISHONEST METAL DETECTING WAS ALMOST NON EXISTENT I SHOWED THE GREATEST OF NAIIVETY, AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT, ALTHOUGH SUCH ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES HAVE DEMINISHED ON SCHEDULED SITES THE PROBLEM OF NIGHTHAWKING IS STILL A MAJOR CHALLENGE, AND THE HARDWORK OF THOUSANDS OF HONEST, GENUINE BLOKES WHO DETECT REGULARLY IS BEING UNDERMINED BY DISHONEST, IMMORAL THIEVING b******s, WHO LIVE OFF THE BACKS OF THE OF THE MAJORITY WHO ARE THE "GOOD GUYS". THE PROBLEM IS WE ALL KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND DO NOWT ABOUT IT . (punctuation and spelling original, emphasis mine)

In its comments on this article, Heritage Action points out that in numerical terms the 150 illegal detectorists which Mr Browning reports have been on his land are actually 1.5% of the 10 000 metal detectorists there are thought to be in the UK. That is just one farm in one village. The three men sentenced in March had travelled from the other side of another county to be there that night. The Suffolk lady metal detectorist says “land all around that area is regularly targeted”. We have seen that as at Icklingham, when items of value (such as Treasure) are found, trespassing illegal metal detecting is especially likely to take place (as was surmised at Stixwould). Not all of some Treasure finds are recovered by the Treasure unit in England and Wales (see the allegations about Cold Brayfield here). Each year now 600-700 Treasure items are reported in England and Wales alone. How many of those sites when they become known through the grapevine which the Oxford Nighthawking survey has shown to exist are subsequently visited at night by illegal artefact hunters trying to find more? How many of them are successful in making off with finds that could have been associated with the original, properly reported, ones? I do not know, but my feeling is that it’s a lot more than just “1,5% of all metal detector users in the united Kingdom".

So it is that as Heritage Action’s Heritage Journal notes:

Lootings from the four corners of the world end up in polished walnut cabinets in Ohio and everyone's blameless. And in the case of Britain the route leads from the criminal chapter (and the much larger unethical and conservation-blind) chapters of a hobby for heroes straight to American collecting zeroes.

(The mention of Ohio is apparently a reference to US collector John Rieske’s aggressive eaction to what Heritage Action was saying earlier about this issue). While the international antiquities market continues not only to tolerate but encourage trade in totally pedigree-less and undocumented artefacts, it will continue to act as a major motor of this looting.

see also:
Browning, J. 1995, ‘A Layman’s attempt to precipitate change in domestic and international ‘heritage’ laws’, in: TubbK.W. (eds) Antiquities Trade or Betrayed, Legal, Ethical and Conservation Issues, London (Archtype), 145-9.

Photo: REAL heritage hero John Browning, (from East Anglian Daily Times)

Cold Brayfield Questions that will not go away

The Cold Brayfield (Treasure case 2006/T631) hoard has inadvertently become somewhat of a touchstone of the differences between portable antiquity collectors (interested on getting their hands on the loot) and archaeologists (interested in having the information about context preserved, if not the context – site – itself).

Its finders have unexpectedly found themselves some transatlantic allies, Washington lawyer Peter Tompa (President of the Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild) and ACCG Executive Director and author Wayne Sayles have leapt to defend them, stopping just short of accusing several of us of totalitarian attitudes before finally blurting out: "Context Lost -- So What?" not recognising the importance the Treasure Act places on preserving information about that context. On the Firth of Forth there is even an archaeologist who seems to mistake David Gill’s blog for mine and there insists these finders should be given the benefit of the doubt, for some reason he canna' believe that they dug the coins out the way they themselves are quoted in the newspapers admitting. Hmmm.

As we have discussed in several posts: here , here, here, here, and here, the hoard was by all accounts dug out from well below plough level by two metal detector users in the darkness. As I have noted, this is in direct contravention of the guidelines of both the Code for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales and the guidelines of the Code of Practice to the 1996 Treasure Act. As a result, by the time the FLO got there a "due to the fact that the find had already been removed prior to investigation a stratigraphical relationship could not be established" between these finds and the associated archaeological deposits.

There seems to be some doubt however in local circles when and how this hoard was actually discovered. Norwegian "metal detectorist" Gary Brun pointed us to the website of the Central Searchers, a group that seems in some way to have been involved; correspondence with the website owners revealed a different version of the story. I was told last week by Gillian Evans of the Central Searchers metal detecting group (whose husband had been involved in the recovery) that instead of the "day before" Julian Watters started his two metre by two metre mattock-dug hole, the nocturnal discovery took place a week before Julian Watters visited the site. If that is the case why was Mr Watters given the impression it was at a later time? What happened in Cold Brayfield between the date of discovery according to Mrs Evans, and the date reported to Mr Watters? As described here earlier, any attempt to log on to the forum of that group to try and determine any other details have however been frustrated.

Furthermore, how many coins were actually recovered in the night from this hoard? We know 1456 went to the BM. If however one has Google Earth installed and downloads this file: “Sites in Buckinghamshire” we are told something else. Somebody, presumably a fellow metal detectorist is alleging that the "bloke who found [the] hoard has another 3000 coins". This of course may be just spiteful gossip without any foundation, but certainly this is the sort of allegation that needs investigating by those responsible for dealing with Treasure and the truth of which should have been investigated at the Coroner's inquest. Was, however the coroner informed of this? I hope to be able to obtain a transcript of part of the documentation to find out. So far though it seems my request for information is apparently being passed around the office like a hot potato.

Of course if the British Museum report on the hoard contained a drawing of the pot and its volume stated and the extent of the bronze stains on the inside of the vessel indicated, then it would be clearer how many coins had been originally deposited in the pot - rather a key point one would have thought. To describe the BM report on this find that someone was kind enough to send to me as "sketchy" would be an understatement. The ceramics from the original find and Mr Watters' investigation are dismissed in four lines, there is no reference to any pottery figures. The coins are not fully reported, neither is any distinction made between the two groups (Phillips/Plasom- Watters) of finds. It apparently took the BM two years to write this, and its absence is the reason why Mr Watters has not (he tells me) been able to write up the results of his four-square metre investigation. [I do not think the report I have seen contains anything a FLO with the experience of Mr Watters could not have worked out himself without sending the material to the BM and waiting two years for a reply.]

So my question to the Portable Antiquities Scheme (still) is: "should the finders be eligible for the full reward, or should from an archaeological point of view we not be urging that the Secretary of State exercise his discretion under paragraph 79 (viii and - see below - possibly iv) of the Treasure Act Code of Practice and section 10(7) of the Treasure Act?" If instead of being an archaeologist, I was a "metal detectorist" asking the PAS this question, what answer would I receive? Or is this simply a question that the PAS will not actually answer despite being engaged in "archaeological outreach" to the public, and engaged in promoting "best practice by finders"? I think the public has a right to know.

I recently addressed these questions to the two FLOs involved (twice). All I received in reply was some generally dismissive statement of "the sort of whispers that accompanies this sort of find". Surely the whole point of having a Treasure Unit, and a coroner's inquest is to sort out the true facts behind the "whispers" so we have reliable archaeological information about the context of such finds? If the system is not working and despite everything, all we are getting for the money and effort expended on this is distorted by poor reporting, half-truths and nagging doubts about the contexts and contents, the whole process is a bit pointless.

Having a Chat with Central Searchers?

.

Inspired by Gary Brun's posting to several blogs and forums that information about the elusive Cold Brayfield hoard discovery can be found on the Central Searchers metal detectorists' website, like myself last week, a colleague tried to register... well, that was a few days ago. Just now I received this from him:

I finally had a message saying my Central Searchers registration had been accepted but when I logged on I was greeted with a message saying "You have been banned from this forum." I wonder what they've got against someone called "Marcus" ?! Maybe it was considered too upmarket. I should have chosen 'Kevin'. Or maybe something like 'Hoiker'. (You can publish this message if you wish!)

Now, right there on the homepage it says right among the homely violet: "Please feel free to log on and register on our metal detecting forum you do not have to be a club member to register." Well, there's an invitation to blog readers, log on and see what "unsung heroes of the British heritage" discuss among themselves. I am sure we'd all like to know what exactly Gillian and Richard Evans, and all those Central Searchers people have got to hide from a new member called "Marcus" before he has even had a look at what they have on offer. What strange behaviour. What kind of a community is it that bans somebody the moment they accept their registration? Take a look - though you will have to be a member to get onto the special secret one where you get a password that is changed and you are forbidden to share with non-members, so they cannot see what part of the heritage is being taken away by these secretive folk.

Treasure Annual Reports: just "inconvenient"?

Over the past few days we have seen here (in the discussion of Treasure case 2006/T631, Cold Brayfield) the problems of determining what has happened in the case of Treasure finds made by artefact hunters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland when the only information that is available comes from the newspapers.

Section 12 of the 1996 Treasure Act requires that the elected representatives of the British people should be kept informed about what Treasure finds have been taken from the archaeological record and which of them deposited in public collections by the production of a Report on the Operation of the Act:

“As soon as reasonably practicable after each anniversary of the coming into force of this section, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report on the operation of this Act in the preceding year”.

Well, the Act came into force 24 September 1997, but apparently the last (seventh) Report came out in January 2007. It covers however the period 1 Jan – 31 Dec 2004. So when would it be "convenient" for the Secretary of State to inform us about what was happening in this area in 2005, 2006, and 2007? Will we now have to wait until some time in the middle of 2010 or even later to find out what happened for example at Cold Brayfield in December two years ago, despite the fact that the inquest was last week and this concerns administrative decisions being made about the treatment of the common heritage? Why cannot this information be made available online as each situation unfolds?

The Washington Lawyer and the Metal Detectorists

Peter Tompa seems to want us to think he understands all about metal detecting. He is one of a number of US coin collectors who therefore presume to lecture the British archaeologists and others on where their coins "come from". Perhaps he’s out there most weekends in the fields around Washington DC with his Minelab Explorer legally digging up and reporting loads of ancient coins and metallic bits of the ancient past to stick in his display cabinet or sell on eBay, who knows? Anyway, he says

I have spoken to several classical archaeologists (with no axe to grind against collectors) that have told me that large hoards like that found here are not typically found at archaeological sites (in contrast to much smaller purse hoards). As there appears to be a difference of opinion on this point, I think it is best to focus on the fact that most hoards found by detectorists are found on ploughed land where context has already been disturbed

Hmm. I do not know how it is on the metal detecting scene in Washington, but in England most metal detect users try hard by various forms of “research” to locate a “productive” site to search. The British weather is pretty miserable most of the time (most of the detecting season in particular) and spending hours on end in the drizzle sweeping an area which produces nothing and is never likely to produce anything really is not exactly going to be regarded by anyone with a modicum of intelligence as a very fruitful pastime. For this reason, many metal detected finds do not come from fields which contain no other evidence of human activity. Maybe Washington DC detector users might like to learn for example a few tips from English metal detector users where to find Roman finds... (Finding Roman Sites - Help for Newbies, by "Bathdigger").

Some magical significance seems to be associated by US coin collectors to the words "found in ploughed fields". They seem to have in their heads the idea that anything that is in a ploughed field is not from an archaeological site. Perhaps they think it just fell there out of the sky? Or was "dropped on the way to a battle". I think they must imagine that all ancient sites in the UK apart from Stonehenge must be concreted over by now. I don't know what they'd think of major Roman sites like Durobrivae, Wroxeter, St Albans, Shore Forts such as Othona and so on... all lying in and under ploughed fields.

I have less experience than Mr Tompa of US farming practices, but in England, in the absence of massive soil movement (dumping, landslide) something reported as coming from a metre down is highly unlikely to be from recent ploughsoil. Tompa reckons however that at Cold Brayfield near Newport Pagnell:

the fact that the coins were found with broken pottery (presumably the remains of the container that initially protected the coins) still argues that earlier ploughing operations already damaged the context of the find.

This of course, as well as the date when it happened was one of the things that a proper investigation of the findspot instead of the nocturnal fossicking that took place could have revealed. An episode of (for example) Dark Age ploughing would be just as much part of the context (story of the findspot) as the deposition of the hoard. Or maybe the jar was broken to get part of the hoard out a few years after it was hidden? Or to add a second batch of coins? We will never know because the nocturnal coin grabbing probably simply mixed the whole lot up. This find was not from ploughsoil, it was most likely removed from (comprised in fact part of) undisturbed - and most likely largely unthreatened - archaeological deposits lying below it. That is the archaeological reality behind a few thousand more Late Roman bronzes entering the "numismatic" market which is already saturated with them.

What would the PAS say?

Cultural Property Observer discussed two blog posts (mine and David Gill’s) about the three-foot deep hole apparently dug in the dark by English metal detectorists on a Roman site at Cold Brayfield near Newport Pagnell and says “I find all their focus on context in this circumstance to be a bit laughable.” Well, he would, it has already been adequately shown out by David Gill that this US lawyer's notions on archaeological context are somewhat uninformed.

Tompa, amazingly, cites Roger Bland, director of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in support of his mocking tone. In the light of CPO's comments I’d also be very interested to hear what Roger Bland has actually said to the US coin collectors and dealers of the ACCG and Unidroit-L who seem to have a very warped idea of what the PAS actually does and represents. For the PAS is nothing if it is not about context !

This raises the question of what the PAS would say to these two metal detector users had they asked if it was OK to dig a three foot hole in the dark into a Roman site. Would they say “no, this is a bad idea”, or would PAS staff stay silent so as not to upset the inherently touchy and defensive metal detectorists? Well, gentle reader you will just have to log on to a metal detecting forum on which a number of archaeologists as well as Roger Bland himself are members to find out what weighty ethical matters they discuss as part of their outreach with British "metal detectorists" and how frequently. After all, what better place to reach these people than an online forum? (More to the point, have a look at the number of issues that came up over that year that they decided not to pass comment on.) I think though the notions of archaeological outreach conducted by the PAS and other "bridge-building" archaeologists have up to now tended to concentrate more on reaching out for "data" than reaching out with archaeological advice. More passive taking than active giving here too, I get the feeling. The same thing was happening on the PAS Forum when they had one.

I think we'd all like to know what the PAS would actually say as part of their outreach to other “metal detectorists” contemplating imitating the reported deed. The newspaper report of the findings of the Milton Keynes Treasure inquest gives us all the impression these guys are being rewarded for what sounds like bad practice, if this is not the case, I assume the PAS will be producing a statement setting the record straight.

English Detectorists Say They Dug a Metre into Roman Site in the Dark

“It is believed the hoard was deposited on a Roman rubbish pit” says the newspaper article about another Roman coin hoard, this one dug up on a Roman site near Newport Pagnell. We don’t really know because according to the newspaper report of what was said at the Treasure inquest in Milton Keynes, the two metal detectorists Barrie Plasom and Dave Phillips rapidly hoiked it out in the dark before telling anyone about it.

They continued to dig a hole three feet deep and found more than 1,400 bronze coins and pieces of pottery. "It was about 5.30pm at this time of year so it was pitch black and we couldn't see a thing," added Mr Phillips. "We laid on our bellies and kept pulling out coins.

Three feet (nearly a metre) deep, that has to be some sort of record I guess for Britain [normally holes of this size are associated with looting of tells in Iraq and graves in Peru etc]. What is interesting is these seem to be the finders' own words.

The Treasure Code of Practice has something to say about this kind of thing (para. 33, 34, 36 etc, but above all 79[viii]), not that anyone in Britain takes any notice of that sort of thing of course.

Whatever these two may by their own account have dug through on an evening in early December 2006 to get these finds out of the ground, it does seem that this is another of those Roman settlement finds which show the lie of the claim so frequently made by collectors and dealers that “hoards are always found well away from archaeological sites”. It would seem that this one sadly slap-bang in the middle of one. Sadly though one may suspect that not very many notes on what was dug through were taken during this mad coin grabfest in the winter dusk. In fact the metal detectorists did not even seem to have had much of an idea where on the map the findspot was since the newspaper account of the inquest suggests they did not even know in what county they had been digging, they initially mistook which side of the Bedfordshire/ Buckinghamshire border they had been... but, in England, the administrative boundaries are marked on proper large scale maps (the sort responsible fieldworkers use to plot their finds).

Everything points to this being the Cold Brayfield hoard (2006/T631). Mr Plasom has already had other valuable finds from this vicinity in the past.

Laura Hannam, 'Treasure hunters set to coin it with Roman haul', Milton Keynes News 29 October 2008. Vignette from here.