"Farm Business" Magazine on Treasure Hunting Rage

.
I do not know if you can read this 'Business innovation' page from Farm Busines magazine of 17th December 2010, if you can't its probably just as well for the blood pressure of all who care....
The proposal is to collect money from leasing access to land for metal detectorists ("professional treasure hunters") to come in and strip the archaeological collectables from the soil on an industrial scale. They describe metal detecting in these terms: This is a business, not a hobby..........

The business plan contains some interesting numbers: "About 30 000 metal detectorists dig at least twice a week in the UK " (that is three times the Heritage Action estimate - you know that Erosion Counter everybody says is excessive). Furthermore "Demand is forecast to grow by 25% per year" (so by the end of the decade there will be 105000 of the blighters? Thirteen times the current HA estimate). This is assigned to the fact that "valuable finds are well reported in the media" (let us note: often by PAS press releases, unbelievably there were even plans to make a TV series about this with PAS involvement).

In this commercial Treasure hunting operation, land will be ‘graded’ depending on what historical resource it has in it and (since the archaeological record of any piece of land is a highly finite resource) „how much it has been detected on” in the past. The revenue will come in from ticket sales - the article shows what enticingly high sums can be raised by giving this organization a monopoly to search this land.

The organization is called "Hunters Corporate", Barry Wayne, Mark Becher and Victoria Bosworth. It is obviously related to this: Hunters Events UK and Hunters of Hertfordshire. they even say they have Codes of conduct - but there's inexplicably ONE MISSING, ISN"T THERE?

"The hunters corporate events finds division agreement is written into each landowner/farmer and detectorists contract and states that any items recovered from the ground on a hunters event are subject to this agreement. 40% for the landowner, 40% for the finder & 20% for hunters corporate events". But nothing for the PAS which is expected to be part of the hunters' business plan for free. Well, everybody else pays for that, so the hunters can make money by selling off the past, don't they? But then, where's the fifty-fifty finder-landowner split that Treasure finds normally attract? Both landowner and finder are agreeing to a 10% cut. What about non-Treasure finds? Do Hunterscorporate give landowners 40% of the market value for every collectable removed from their land? How would they administer that? Or are they just going to reimburse the landowner for 10% less than they'd get from the Treasure Valuation Committee in the case of Treasure finds and the finder walks off with the rest? They do say: "the land owner gets the very best treatment from the detectorists and will also get their share in all finds made", which rather suggests that having bought tickets, the finders either have to surrender all their finds to be sold, or pay the landowner 40% of the value of each and the "Hunters" another 20% of their value to take them home. What's in it for them then? Why not just go to a normal commercial rally held on 'prime land' where they can just keep all the non-Treasure items they find with no extra cost?

Would it not be too much to expect that the PAS might say a few words about the scope and nature of their proposed involvement with commercial operations of this sort? Should they not - like any archaeologist that abides by a code of conduct - be contacting landowners (like through their trade magazines) trying to STOP just this sort of exploitation of the archaeological resources of their land? Otherwise one might suspect that they see organized events like this as a good opportunity to get "more finds on the database" with minimal effort. Surely promoting best practice comprises a bit more than that? Do "Hunters Corporate" enjoy the support of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, or is the Portable Antiquities Scheme going to come out publicly and condemn this kind of exploitation?

[A Deep Bloomsburian Silence ensues].

Vignette: Hertford metal detecting wannabe-monopolists Mark Becher and Barry Wayne trying to look like mafiosos with a business plan in green wellies and flares.

"A great day out for beginners or professionals"

.

"Metal Detecting Dig Day, Berkshire, Limited places! A great day out for beginners or professionals" says the advert...

The site is on approximately 100 acres of previously undetected land close to the Iron Age/ Roman town of Silchester, the search area is very close to the Devils Highway Roman road, with good Iron Age, Roman & Saxon/ Medieval History in the area. .

Potential customers are told that search conditions on the day should be easy going and are assured that some fields to which access will be given are under a wheat crop while others are under freshly planted grass. But in addition "there may also be some pasture to search on the day". Pasture eh? Luvverly ridge and furrow or maybe DMV earthworks then? We have met "Hunters Events" before, the guys who set up a business to "provide metal detectorists with well organised professional metal detecting events", using only "land that has had minimal detection, with good history on site and in the surrounding area".

Remember:

All of our events have included in the price: [...] Finds recording service provided by the Portable Antiquities Scheme's Finds Liaison officers & the Hunters Events finds team.

So they are making a contribution to the running of the PAS from the rally ticket money? Or do the tax payers pay for that as usual?

Now I'd like to know more about these "professional" metal detectorists, where do they search in order to make a decent living when they are not going on commercial artefact hunting rallies organized by third parties? How can you be a "professional metal detectorist" anywhere else in Europe apart from England, Scotland and Wales, and what does that tell you about those three countries?

Vignette: Sam Toft, "A Day Out".

The Trials and tribulations of some "Professional Metal Detectorists"

.
This is nice. Posted the other day on the UKDN forum by Mark, Barry, Victoria, Jim, Karen, Kayla and Maya - "The Hunters Events Team", the guys in the green wellies promoting their superior "business plan":

'It is with great sadness that I inform you that after our Berkshire dig on 27th March 2011 we will be ceasing to run any more events. This is due to the fact that many of the sources of our advertisement have now refused to publish our adverts because of the unsubstantiated criticism we have received and the criticism they are now receiving for advertising us. They too are trying to run a business and have informed us that they cannot risk losing their customers due to the criticism we have received and for nothing more than trying to bring metal detectorists land that may otherwise would have been unavailable to them. Unfortunately this land will probably remain unavailable as without more detectorists joining us we are doomed to not succeed'.

Sad eh? All those archaeological sites out there waiting to be looted for collectables and there will be no fee-paying access to them for the majority of those eager detector-using collectors. Wait a minute, does that not mean they are for the moment safe from erosive commercial exploitation?

Personally I would have thought the way to deal with "unsubstantiated criticism" is simply to set out the other side of the story. Of course its a different thing if the criticism is not only justified but substantiated, isn't it? Readers can judge for themselves whether those criticising this operation gave their reasons for doing so, thus substantiating their arguments.

The "Hunters" add:

As a team we worked very hard to bring this together and it is a shame to see it ending, it was lovely while it lasted and but our dream to bring our fellow detectorists land is now over.

All that innocent dreamy altruism met with incomprehension by those "sources of our advertisement [who] have now refused to publish our adverts because of the unsubstantiated criticism we have received and the criticism they are now receiving for advertising" - like eBay.UK then? First time I've heard of eBay.UK reacting to criticisms of its role in the commercial exploitation of the archaeological heritage - still there's a first time for everything I guess.

But I ask, is it the lack of prior advertisment that is the problem, or that responsible (or other) metal detectorists simply did not like the set-up of this organization and what it stood for and did not buy the tickets?

UPDATE on the "Hunter Events" Business Plan

.
No sooner do I get a post up here about the "Hunters Events" business venture than loopy Californian antiquities dealer Dave Welsh puts up on his own antiquitist micro-forum (A mistaken perspective) his own reaction to the comments of "Paul Barford, self-styled expatriate British archaeologist" on this commercial organization:

Mr. Barford's perspective appears to be solely based upon what he conceives to be the interests of archaeology. That which he seems to support his view of these interests is good, and that which contravenes his view of these interests is bad. Not only is this perspective essentially parochial, it also apparently makes little or no sense to many distinguished archaeologists with well documented and impressive credentials, for example the archaeologist who heads the British PAS.

two things really, like it or not, the perspective of this blog is the conservation of the archaeological record in the face of its erosive commercial exploitation to serve the predominantly no-questions-asked antiquities market. Whether or not that is a "mistaken perspective" (as the dealer representing a voice in that same no-questions-asked market would have it) I leave up to readers to decide. Personally I think (as the topic of the blog indicates) that it is a perfectly valid perspective and one I feel an important one.

Secondly I firmly believe that, distinguished or not, if he believes this perspective is a mistaken one, the "archaeologist with well documented and impressive credentials who heads the British PAS" (British archaeology's largest public outreach organization) is wrong. Wholly wrong. I and others are prepared to debate that with him, but it should be noted that there was recently an excellent occasion to do this in the pages of the UCL Institute of Archaeology's forum on David Gill's (another distinguished archaeologist with well documented and impressive credentials) thoughts on the matter. Roger Bland (who is primarily a numismatist rather than an archaeologist), however, declined to take part in this debate.

In Welsh's place though I would be wary of putting words in Bland's mouth, that particular question is one that, distinguished or not, Roger Bland seems unwilling to address in any detail himself. Putting the question of priority of site conservation over the exploitive activities of the PAS' "partners" the UK artefact hunters has until now elicited a response no louder than the cooing of the Bloomsbury Square pigeons.

The Name of the Game: is "artefact hunter" an offensive label?

On the Council for British Archaeology's ‘britarch’ public discussion list is a recent post by a metal detector user from Sussex in which it is intimated that the term “artefact hunter” is an offensive label. Several other British archaeological forums have in the past agreed with this view and as a consequence in a bout of political correctness banned the use of the term. One of these forums was that of the Britain’s largest archaeological outreach, the Portable Antiquities Scheme (now closed) the other is the forum of BAJR (British Archaeological Jobs Resource). The British are apparently required to call these hobbyists “metal detectorists”. Over the other side of the Atlantic however relic hunters are not afraid to use the term, meteorite hunters use metal detectors and do not take umbrage if called meteorite hunters. So what’s the problem?
In Britain the hobby of looking for ancient artefacts with a metal detector from the 1970s onwards was initially called ‘treasure hunting’. This was the name given to Britain’s oldest hobby magazine. Such a name however suggested that the people with metal detectors were in it for the money, an image the hobby desperately wanted to play down once it was being highlighted by anti-collecting public information programmes (such as the CBA’s abortive STOP campaign).

The term “metal detecting” was suitably neutral, it sounded rather anorakish and harmless. As Andrew Gilchrist (2003) noted the name conjures up in the popular imagination a pastime which

“is hardly regarded as rivetting; a hobby, perhaps, for people who find trainspotting too full-on”.

The problem is that there are many things one can do with a metal detector other than hoover up ancient metal artefacts from the archaeological record for entertainment or profit. Most of us meet metal detectors in airport check-ins, the foyers of public buildings. Are the people who operate them and interpret the results “metal detectorists”? Metal detectors are used by builders (to locate electric cables and pipes in walls), they are used in industry (to detect foreign objects in food). Some people use their metal detectors to hunt for meteorites in the desert, or gold in the mountains and would never dream of searching an ancient site. Others search beaches and places where public events have recently been held in order to gather up loose change and other dropped valuables. Some take part in token-hunting competitions, while others search the scenes of recent military activity to find collectable hardware. Metal detectors have many uses, and they are all “metal detecting”. The term used by the British in order to be politically-correct is ambiguous and imprecise. So ambiguous and imprecise in fact that it is a hindrance rather than an aid to discussion. That, of course is the main reason why portable artefact collectors want it to be the term used in discussions, and why they start to get a bit worried when people start calling them "artefact hunters". They pretend it is "offensive" - but never have explained in what way, but it does make explicit what they and their supporters want to play down.

I am all for calling a spade a spade. In the hobby that is (should be) of archaeological concern in Britain, this equipment is being used to hunt for artefacts, the hobby these people are engaged in is artefact hunting. The portable antiquities that are collected in Britain include more than just metal objects found with a metal detector, but flint tools, pottery, the occasional shale, jet, amber, stone, bone or glass object also find their way to private collections. This is all a cause for concern, not just the part of the hunting for collectables which is electronically aided. Metal detecting is nothing more or less than artefact hunting. But as Jerome Hall noted in his seminal article, calling a spade a spade is not something the artefact hunting and collecting milieu is very good at.

References:
Andrew Gilchrist 2003: ‘There's gold in them there hills', The Guardian, Nov. 17

Jerome Hall 2007: 'The Fig and The Spade: Countering the deceptions of treasure hunters. AIA Archaeology Watch.
.

Taking it on the Chin UK Tekkie Style

Cramming them in 2018

If  artefact hunters don't start taking the current health crisis seriously, the Metal Detecting Problem in the UK may well soon be over; natural selection may solve it for us if greedy and utterly moronic artefact hunters insist on holding a commercial meeting for hundreds of artefact hunters in a few weeks time (“Spring Detectival” still on despite the health crisis' Heritage Journal  14/03/2020):

Spring Detectival 2020 is the latest in a series of similar massive events, this one scheduled for April. They are particularly unwelcome and damaging because of their sheer size and because they cater for detectorists from all over Europe and beyond. It is perhaps a reflection of both the organisers and their customers that despite the current health emergency the event is still being scheduled to go ahead, using the thinnest of excuses: “The risk to individuals in the UK remains low [really? – Ed.] and there is no restriction on travel or trade. In light of this, our events will take place as normal and we will continue to adhere to UK Government guidance.”.

Shades of the same rhetoric that accompanied the Brexit ("we Brits won the War, we beat the Hun, we can beat this"), the pandemic is causing distress, death and disruption all over the world, but "individuals in the UK" are somehow immune. Because they are British? Eh?

Of course the organisers have a lot of money to lose if the event is cancelled. They may even have contracted with the landowner to pay a specific sum (maybe paid in advance with the ticket money received). They have overheads to cover and will lose out if they have to refund the ticket money. So it stands to reason that they will want it to go ahead and not have to return the ticket money. But if they callously do, and cretinous  ("I paid me munny and nuffink's gonna stop me from going") people actually do crowd into the campsite and beer and burger tent, it will be at the expense of the lives of many of the participants and members of their families.

A large section of the British metal detecting community are white males, aged 60+ many of whom are or have been heavy smokers and drinkers. The reported government 'policy' on dealing with this virus might be to "let it pass through the community" as the country is left, as the Prime Minister stated, to “take it on the chin” (This Morning on Thursday 5 March). If a wave of infection passes through that lot, there will be many among those endangered by a collapsing NHS as overstretched British hospitals predictably fill up with increasing numbers of acute pneumonia and organ failure cases. Not all of them will get on the respirators. The UK strategy is called eugenics.

Much as I disapprove of 'metal detecting', I really would prefer those that do it and the more vulnerable members of their families to be safer than reckless.


Update: 15th March 2020
Heritage journal: 'Detectival: shameless organisers still determined not to cancel!' 15th March 2020. 

The Detectival organisers [...] have issued this statement: "[...] we will continue with the event.”

Meanwhile "Italy reported its biggest day-to-day jump in cases of COVID19, 3497 new cases - a 20% increase in 24 hrs. Authorities cited irresponsible behaviour by citizens, who despite warnings headed to beaches or ski resorts, especially after closure of schools". Here for the benefit of the numpties, the Washington Post has some colourful moving pictures which explain "Why outbreaks like coronavirus spread exponentially, and how to “flatten the curve”... (Harry Stevens, March 14th 2020). This British "Keep calm and carry on as you were" strategy is going to lead to tragedy. Many countries have already put lockdown measures in place but Bonkers Britain fails to seize the opportunity, and many of the less-bright citizens tragically fail to see how that will in the end affect them. 

Focus on PAS: More on those figures

The PAS says that finds have been reported by 29,402 finders. How many of them are metal detectorists? There is no way to tell for sure, those data are being kept by the PAS close to their chest. However we may assume that that most members of the public who are not artefact hunters are not likely to be serial finders of artefacts (statistics on that are also lacking from the PAS). If we look at the number of records from various activities, and assume that the number of recording events (records) relates more closely to the number of reporters than the number of finds, we get the following

Agricultural work  681 records
building                708 records
gardening            3017 records
chance find         9751  records
total                  14,157 records

Then there is another group of finders:

Controlled archaeological investigation  543+319+23+615 = 1500.
Metal detector during archaeological investigation  
         1149
Fieldwalking                                                                     17294

Again it is impossible to determine from that how many 'finders' included in the PAS total that represents (indeed, what these data from archaeological projects which should be being reported elsewhere are doing in the PAS database at all, that is another 2649 + 17,294 = 19,943 finds that should be subtracted from that nominal "million").

If we assume that the majority of the chance finds in the first group were one-off events, we may suggest subtracting 14000 from the 29,402 total. That means that only some 15400 finders would be either metal detectorists or archaeologists, plus those falling into other categories. This is pretty disturbing if we assume that the number of detectorists was 8000 a decade ago (those were my figures and the PAS has been saying much the same sort of thing), and has risen to 16000 in more recent years (this seems to be suggested by extrapolating from statistics on the growth in MD club membership). Many of these artefact hunters will have been active for only part of the time the PAS has been running. Those who took up artefact hunting as men in their twenties in the 1970s will now be in their late sixties. Those who took it up in the 1970s or 1980s in later middle age or retirement are mostly dead.  So the figures of "more than 9000" (minimum given by 'rally' figures) to "less than 15400" really are not very satisfactory for the fruits of eighteen years' work.

But really it beats me why we are left guessing about these figures and having to stand on our heads trying to work out what the PAD "statistics" mean for the heritage debate. Why on earth can the PAS not just tell it as it is, and give the figures for the patterns of reporting by artefact hunters and collectors and others in black and white for us all to see? Why not? How much more cash would transparency cost?

Focus on UK Metal Detecting: "Not interested in your biased arguments"

Ebola, little thing, let's ignore it,
maybe it will go away

Metal detectorist "Supernova" (James Oliver) cut and pasted onto his blog (in a text he titled: 'Dodgy Metal Detecting?' June 27th) a Heritage Action text about the inclusion of metal detecting and dowsing in the "Days of Archaeology" festival events (pointing out that neither has any right to be there because they are not really any form of archaeology). Instead of taking up that subject, however, Mr Oliver went off on a tangent onto a totally different topic. He accuses the conservation group of being merely "rather negative in their in their opinions" and castigates them for ignoring what artefact hunters have to offer archaeology. But that was not the point of what Heritage Action was saying. Then comes the "we are not all nighthawks" mantra (ditto) and ended with the question "why can we not discuss this issue that stands between us?"

Well, why can we not? That is what the Internet, blogs like these are for. So what stands in the way? Is it a lack of information about what the issues are? Hardly. In the English speaking sector there are blokes like David Gill, Nigel Swift, SAFE, the Antiquities Coalition, the Glasgow Trafficking Culture people, myself and others perfectly articulately rehearsing the problems and issues surrounding antiquities collecting. I'd like to say the CBA, PAS, IfA and others are too, but they are not, it's not the professional bodies doing this, but mostly people like myself devoting their own time to doing this. But the information is there fully in the public domain, in black and white at the click of a mouse (not to mention additional material in various professional journals). The issues that stand between archaeology/ preservation and artefact hunting and require discussion and resolution are clearly visible and available for those that care to read them and think about them. 

There, however, is the problem. We see from his initial reaction that Mr Oliver had not actually read what Heritage Action wrote with any understanding or empathy. No, he simply saw that it mentions metal detecting and automatically and immediately dismissed it as closed-mind negativity of people allegedly too superficial to understand that not all artefact hunters are nighthawks. He has made no effort whatsoever to address the actual points made, or even understand them.

Neither is he at all interested in discussing the actual reason for the 'gap' as he put it, between the different uses of evidence for the past, by archaeology through the methods of the discipline and those who merely want some geegaws to collect. I briefly summarised the issue in a (perfectly civil) comment responding to what he'd said (02/09/2013 at 5:58 am):

and did you get around to discussing “this issue that stands between us” with the archaeologists and conservationists in any detail? Where, please? Artefact hunting and collecting happen in many corners of the world, can you give an indication how this is adding “a positive contribution to our heritage” in Egypt, Syria, Peru, Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and NW Russia and everywhere else this is going on at the moment?

He dodged the question, it seems he wants us to see what artefact hunters with metal detectors and spades do to the archaeological record in the UK as in some way substantively different to what artefact hunters with metal detectors and spades do to the archaeological record in other countries. For him and those who think like him, Britain is apparently some magical fairyland where the gaping wounds done to the archaeological record by artefact takers are magically healed by the Bloomsbury Elven folk.  He tried to deflect the argument away to machine use by the TV reality show "Time Team" (whatever that has got to do with anything) and the Staffordshire Hoard fiasco, and then says: 

I will not be provoked, cajoled, insulted or belittled by you, slandered by your unprofessional and confrontational attitude and your derogatory comments, in short therefore, I do not wish to speak with you further and you are no longer welcome on this blog. My work is important to me even if it’s not to you. No wonder there is conflict between certain groups of archaeologists and detectorists therefore, you may now speak about me on your blog but you are not welcome here any more.

He then calls me a 'troll' for trying to discuss the issue he himself had raised about the gap between artefact hunters and preservationists. This is a typical dismissive tekkie attitude to questions to which they have no coherent answer.  We see this in Mr Oliver's reaction to the comment Heritage Action made ( 18/09/2014 at 10:59 am):

“My work is important to me even if it’s not to you.” “Work”? Helping yourself is not work. It’s helping yourself. Why not join the tens of thousands of amateur archaeologists who DON’T help themselves. THEIRS is “work” and they don’t feel the need to ban critics from their websites as they don’t have critics. You can criticise Paul Barford till you’re blue in the face but what he doesn’t do is do something that would get him locked up in nearly every country and tell the public and farmers it’s valid “work” and himself it’s morally justified because it’s legal. Perhaps you’ll ban me too now. Shooting the messenger again on the grounds the messenger is rude, eh?

This is the same issue, the difference between artefact hunting and archaeology. What was the metal detectorist's response? Well, of course precisely the same dismissive approach (18/09/2014 at 11:17 am), a curt:

Not interested in your biased arguments.

This is tautology in an incomplete sentence. All arguments approach a subject from a particular point of view and are intended to express and support that point of view. Heritage Action's, like mine, is that artefact hunting is not archaeology. Mr Oliver first expressed an interest in discussing that issue and then decided that he was not up to it, and has resorted to simple dismissal.

The root of the problem is that metal detectorists in the UK have a paradoxical attitude to archaeology. On the one hand they see this very much as a "them and us" situation - the archaeologist is the Other with reference to which their own individual and group identity are forged. Only by acting aloof and dismissive of the archaeological milieu ("they need us", "they use topsoil-stripping machines", "they steal stuff", "they're so stupid they think we're all nighthawks") is this identity upheld.

On the other hand (and at the instigation of the PAS), artefact hunters seek to be treated as equals as history-makers by the very same professional for which they express such disregard. Equally they expect that [all] archaeologists will validate and legitimate their hobby - irrespective of everything ('cos it's legal innit?).  Furthermore they expect their glib arguments in favour of the status quo to be accepted unquestioningly, in the same way as they themselves accept the glib anti-archaeological slander put out by certain of their number. The moment anyone expresses a contrary view, they gladly play the victim. The interlocutor with the decent arguments is (see above), "elitist",  "provoking", "cajoling" (eh?), "insulting", "derogatory", "belittling", "slandering", "unprofessional" and "confrontational" (and a "troll" to boot). The notion that others might think they are simply wrong, seems not to have crossed his mind. The idea that what other people are saying about the hobby might be worth thinking about and at the least formulating a sensible argument or two against (instead of glib parroting of mantras heard on a forum) to address what is actually being said also seems to be the furthest thing from the metal detectorist's mind. The metal detectorist is happy insulting and dismissing the Other side, less happy when they criticise him and his mates. It's a group identity thing again.

Mr Oliver may not be interested in Heritage Action's arguments, but then at least let him not protest "why can we not discuss this issue that stands between us?" when it is he and his attitudes towards robust, free and open discussion of the issues which constitute the main reason for the gap between the two groups.

The problem is that while the artefact hunters and collectors attempt to ignore the issues and pretend they do not exist for as long as possible, the political situation around them is changing. This is in part happening because of what the other side are saying. The longer they refrain from taking part in the wider heritage debate, the more excluded they become.

Britain: "An Amateur Treasure-Seeker's Paradise"

.
Britain, due to lax legislation is now considered an amateur treasure-seeker's paradise where, according to Stefano Ambrogi of Reuters reporting on another PAS boastfest ('Britain: An amateur treasure-seeker's paradise', May 25th 2011) "unusually, government and museums approve detection and digging by general public" and "detector enthusiasts [...] are able to keep their haul":

Britain is bursting with ancient buried treasure and the masses have been bitten by the bug for digging it up — ironically with the full approval of the government and leading museums. Latest figures released by the British Museum on Wednesday showed a "massive" jump in the number of antiquities and spectacular objects classed as treasure being found by ordinary citizens with a passion for history.

"Highlights displayed at the British Museum" include "a stash of late Iron Age solid gold coins, called "staters," dating from 15 to 20 AD" (that would be the Wickham Market hoard where limited excavations - I think as yet unpublished - failed to reveal much about its burial context). "Of equal importance" (for whom?) "is a unique Roman knife handle depicting a perverted erotic scene involving two males and a female with one of the figures clutching a decapitated head. Only a handful of erotic knife handle designs have ever been found in Britain".

Apparently we are to rejoice that "In 2010, over 90,000 archaeological objects were reported to museums across the country — a 36 percent rise on 2009 — through what is known as the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS)". Well, were they? Is that REALLY what that figure of 90 000 represents? Who says so? Where is the Celtic Coin Index and the Roman Coins of Wales database? What about the Norfolk paper records entered by interns? All these contain information coming from PREVIOUS years, and not 2010 alone, don't they? In the case of the CCI some data going back to the eighteenth century well before electronic metal detectors (well before electricity in fact).

According to the article (is this based on a PAS press release?) the reason why so-called "detector enthusiasts" (why not call them what they are - artefact hunters?) were "derided by archaeologists in the past for their unscientific practices". That rather skips over what is meant by "unscientific", it is not whether they use more sophisticated (depth advantage and discriminating) electronic tools for "detecting" metal collectables, but the fact that the archaeological record is being actively mined as a source of collectables in Britain. That is what the problem is, sites and assemblages are being ripped apart and plundered for collectable geegaws, and all the public is told by an appreciative press is that we've an erotic knife handle and to a set of post-medieval false teeth to show for it. And tens of thousands of utterly trashed archaeological sites.

Along comes Michael Lewis to announce that the scheme differed markedly from the way in which excavation is regulated in the rest of Europe

which he said was "draconian" by comparison.

"Draconian" is the sort of word used by dealers and collectors. The likes of Wayne Sayles and Dave Welsh of the ACCG, William Pearlstein of the ACCP. The ACCG certainly thinks the PAS is on their side. Expressions of disdain for measures proposed by other countries in an effort to protect their archaeological sites from being trashed by artefact hunters and collectors being expressed by the PAS certainly do nothing to dispel this impression. After all as we all know, Roger Bland was a willing recipient of the ACCG "Friends of Numismatics" award.

Those so-called "draconian laws" mean that it is illegal to trash sites and treat them as geegaw mines in most other countries of the world (including on public lands in the USA). I really do not see that Britain has anything to be proud of that it is not in England, Wales and Scotland.

Here's some holes dug by artefact hunters at Wanborough and an excavation of a site after the artefact hunters have been there - do artefact hunters no longer damage sites now Britain has a PAS?

That's like making a virtue of the fact that a country may have (for example) limited anti-rape laws. Fine for male perverts, less so for the women who live there. Britain's legislation is fine for the artefact collector, ideal for the dealer (as long as its not for export) and as we have seen now widely regarded as a 'paradise' for treasure seekers. But its not protecting the archaeology. Filling museum cases with pretty dugup and ripped off geegaws is what nineteenth century antiquaries used to do. Elgin, Layard, Botta and Belzoni for example. But it is not "doing archaeology". It is not protecting sites. Paying for upwards of 800 "Treasures" unnecessarily ripped to a great degree from their (unknown because nobody investigates most of the sites) context of deposition well below plough level on otherwise unthreatened sites loudly applauded by all is costing millions yearly. I really cannot see why Lewis thinks this is anything for the Brits to boast about. What on earth do British archaeologists think they are doing just passively watching on as this sort of thing goes on?

Lauding the scheme Vaizey said: It really is incredibly effective...and it works."

Well, only until you stop parroting what you got on the self-gratulatory press release and start asking other questions. What it is actually doing is providing a platform legitimising artefact hunting, looting, and collecting as well as the antiquity trade. It is not actually mitigating the losses to the British archaeological record to any satisfactory degree, because the token big numbers do not look so impressive when you try to examine the evidence for the overall losses. The PAS (including the publicity given to events such as this) seems actually to be directly responsible for an increase in the number of people taking up this erosive and destructive hobby in Britain. It is also actively eroding public perceptions of the aims and purposes (and methods of) archaeology [and that's worldwide]. In actual fact, closer familiarity with what "metal detectorists" are up to behind the scenes (try looking in on the closed sections of their forums Mr Vaisey) reveal as clear as can be that the PAS is failing to instil "best practice" to any significant degree - and yet that was one of the government's primary aims in setting it up. In fact the PAS seems woefully unaware of the need to do anything about recent developments. Neither - most significantly in my opinion - is it providing any kind of a forum for discussion of the issues surrounding artefact hunting, collecting and the trade (licit and illicit) within archaeology, nor as archaeological "outreach" (ha ha - hollow laugh) to the general - non-collecting - public. A task for which the PAS is showing progressively less interest. I really do not see that there are grounds for the Minister's jubilation that it "works" - did they serve wine at the launch?

Where is the CBA? Where is the IFA? Where is APPAG? Where are RESCUE and The Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers? What is going on? [I can't find my Mad Hatter's Teaparty "doormouse into the teapot" vignette: I'll use this instead]
.
Thanks to Nigel Swift for putting arrows on my map, it seems to present the central dilemma so well that I decided to use it twice. How on earth can anyone in their right mind say the PAS is "working" faced with something as graphic as that? Beats me. Cue more attacks on the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter I guess...

Hunters become "Detectives"

.
This is those "Hunters Events" people isn't it? The ones (originally Mark, Barry, Victoria, Jim, Karen, Kayla and Maya) that had a "Business plan" for plunder. Note the eBay page name change. Here they do commercial "digs" for members, and they have an artefact hunting tool shop called "Hidden History" too.

Hmmm. "Detectorists Code of Conduct":

"Hidden History would like to encourage all those who use a metal detector to abide by the Metal Detectorists code of conduct at all times"

and which one would THAT be? Quelle surprise, the NCMD one. The end of this is familiar, lifted from somewhere else, isn't it (with reference to another Code)? And of course how to cash in on any gold and silver artefacts you find.

The Links section is quite well organized and contains a lot of interesting material.

Vignette.

Fincham's "Collaborative network" involving Locals, Sans "Filth"

.
Since my earlier attempt to understand this was dismissed by Derek Fincham as Glennbeckian and "filth" (sic), I'll try again. Fincham wrote a lengthy review of "Chasing Aphrodite" on his Illicit Cultural property blog. The final paragraph of his text however posed some questions about responsibility for looting and how therefore to deal with it. It seems from this text and other things he has written that Dr Fincham differs from those of us who see the antiquities market as the main factor driving commercial antiquities looting. In the text to which I refer, while he admits that the book rightly highlights the "illegal and unethical conduct of the Getty", according to him:

the archaeological community and nations of origin have much to answer for as well. When these ancient cities are studied, concern needs to be directed at the source to how the locals will react. What good is a trained archaeologist who painstakingly unearths parts of an ancient city, only to have her work undone at night by looters. [...] Moving forward how can we envision a collaborative network which follows the law, but also protects sites, allows for professional excavation, and allows us to steward these precious resources for future generations.

Let us note the term "collaborative network". Derek Fincham refused to answer my earlier comments, so has not revealed whether this is a reference back to his previous position (see here , here and here) that England's Portable Antiquities Scheme is a (the?) "way forward" to prevent looting. This is what he has suggested in the past and although the text presently discussed is somewhat garbled, it looks a bit like he still seems to believe this.

I pointed out that protecting the tropical rainforests does not consist of finding ways to professionally make things like tropical hardwood bookshelves from the trees, but preserving the trees in situ and sustainably. In the same way then conservation of archaeological sites (Fincham's "cities") does not mean excavating them all (however "professionally") to get the displayable goodies out right now, but preserving them as intact as possible. Excavation does not come into it. It looks a bit like in proposing a "collaborative network" allowing for "professional excavation" Fincham is thinking about 'stewardship' of dugup OBJECTS rather than archaeological deposits. In other words "art(sic)-protection" at the expense of "archaeological protection". material goods instead of information about our collective social past.

It also seems to me that Fincham is blaming "source countries" and "archaeologists" for not creating these "collaborative networks" involving locals and their "reactions". He does not see them as the victim of looting but one of its causes. I wonder if he would care to enlarge on that?

Advocating the setting up of Portable-Antiquities-Scheme-clones in antiquity "source countries" as a means of preservation (sic) is the kind of collaborative network postulated by Fincham in the past ("A Coordinated Legal and Policy Approach to Undiscovered Antiquities: Adapting the Cultural Heritage Policy of England and Wales to Other Nations of Origin" ). It would take into account "how the locals will react" having a plunderable source of collectables on their doorstep. I suppose those who believe the Brits are putting millions of pounds into research excavations on Treasure findspots (but they are not) which Treasure hunters have stopped disturbing the moment they realise there is reportable material there (they generally do not) might be conned into thinking the Treasure Act "allows for professional excavation".

Here's the recipe for setting up a comparable PAS-clone in the average antiquity source country (applying the 'Fincham Model'):

1) first of all you would have to remove the legislation, rendering the hoiking of collectables out of archaeological site by spade, pickaxe and metal detector legal (nobody is going to come forward to report finds if the activity is illegal).

2) Then you need to set up the PAS-clone Scheme at a cost of a few million dollars a year.

3) This will only be efficient at "building up numbers" of stuff in its database if it concentrates its activities on Treasure hunters rather than accidental finders. Obviously the more Treasure hunters there are, the more will be coming forward with finds to record. And the more 'wonderful things' we will have to show an admiring public glittering away behind security glass.

4) This will not achieve results comparable to the English PAS unless the Treasure hunters can be concentrated into groups, such as organizing commercial artefact-grabbing events rather like the commercial metal detecting rallies in Britain. In societies where metal-detector-ownership-for-everyone is ruled out by poverty, and dealers cannot be persuaded to 'sponsor a treasure seeker' this could have the form of a commercial dig-in, perhaps with the use of earthmoving machinery to give participants access to the finds-bearing layers (like the setup in Texas I discussed on this blog maybe a year ago).

5) Another approach is the 'club', entities which organize treasure seekers into groups where information can be gathered and they can swap stories about how best to plunder the archaeological record for finds for the Clone-Scheme to record.

6) The Clone-Scheme needs to monopolise the media in order to convince the public that short-term policies of plundering the displayable and collectable goodies out of the archaeological record is in no way an erosion of their archaeological values, that anyone who thinks it is must be a 'dinosaur', out of touch with the spirit of the times.

7) It needs to convince archaeologists and other heritage professionals that in order not to be labelled a 'dinosaur', they have to support organized treasure and collectable plundering and the Clone-Scheme. It needs to persuade archaeologists to succumb to the tendency to present archaeology mainly as a "search for shiny stuff" and "stuff to tell half-wit stories about to the press". It needs to combat any of those 'dinosaurs' who insist on recalling how much effort it took previous generations to present archaeology to the public as 'not a treasure hunt'. This may be more difficult in some countries that others, it depends on education I suppose. Certainly remarkable things have happened in the archaeological milieu in Great Britain, the archaeological sites of which are now a "treasure hunter's paradise").

8) Of course not everybody will come forward with their dugups for recording. But that should not matter so much, some is better than nothing. What needs to be done is to make a loud fuss about what has been recorded, take every opportunity to emphasise "how much" has been noted and keep very quiet about the stuff that is clandestinely dug up and spirtited away under the existing legislation. That's not positive news, its food for the 'dinosaurs' who cannot see that a "collaborative network" engaged in emptying sites for collectables is the way forward. At all costs a fuller public discussion of these issues is to be avoided. Transparency is the enemy of policy. Ignore the questioners, send them to Coventry.

PAS Annual Report Sideshow

.
The PAS has launched the latest in its series of annual reports, see here and here. In keeping with PAS "partnership" with Treasure hunters, their annual report was also published in the December issue of Treasure Hunting magazine.

Treasure Act

In England and Wales, 778 Treasure cases were reported in 2009, and 860 Treasure cases were reported in 2010. Of those found in 2009, 34% were acquired by museums (the outcome of 29 cases is still to be determined). Metal-detecting accounted for 95% of 2009 Treasure cases, just 5% then were accidental finds (39 and 43). It is reported that 113 parties (either finder or landowner or both) "waived their right to a reward" in just 71 Treasure cases in 2009 (actually the reward is DISCRETIONARY). It is not recorded how many finders had the reward reduced due to not adhering to the Code of Practice of the Treasure Act. Probably none as usual. The number of Treasure finds from non-ploughed contexts (pasture and below-plough-level) is not given. The number of sites investigated properly by archaeologists at the time of the report or afterwards is not given. The number of previous years' Treasure finds which have now been properly and fully published is not given.

Portable Antiquities Scheme

in 2009, 67,089 finds were recorded by the PAS; in 2010, 90,099 finds were recorded by the PAS. The running total of finds recorded on the PAS database since it started is now given as "over 740,000 finds", but that is in fact 476,546 records (http://finds.org.uk).

The PAS database is intended to help provide information about sites needing conservation protection. It shows that 88% of PAS finds found in 2009 and 2010 were found by artefact hunters out to find collectables for entertainment or profit. According to the figures on the PAS database, only 12% of the finds being removed from archaeological contexts in 2009 and 2010 were the result of accidental discoveries made during the operation of natural erosion or man-made changes. These records therefore suggest that most of the damage being done to archaeological site assemblages in England and Wales today is therefore being done by metal detecting.

72% of PAS finds in 2009, and 74% in 2010, were found on cultivated land. The PAS suggests that this is where:

"they are susceptible to plough damage and artificial and natural corrosion processes"

The PAS (note the name - hinting at what this publicly funded body deals with) however has NEVER produced any kind of detailed study of these effects, and quantified them according to soil type and agricultural regime, it simply trots out the SAME "justifications" of artefact hunting and collecting as their artefact-collecting "partners" instead of publishing a proper study of this issue. How many of the items on the PAS database actually show these effects? With 740 000 items collected there, how many objects can they actually show us that exhibit these effects? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands, Tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands? PAS, show us all the actual evidence for this statement please.

According to the PAS:"90% of PAS finds in 2009, and 88% in 2010, were recorded to the nearest 100m2, the minimum requirement for findspot information to be most useful for Historic Environment Records"... 90% could be located to an accuracy of 1 are (a square ten meters by ten meters)? Really? I think they are trying to confuse their readers by not using the proper term for the land measurement I assume they really mean, hectare (ie the grid size of a 'six-figure NGR'). Actually a 100m latitude in determining the position of a findspot is not sufficient for many archaeological purposes(for example of a hoard or other find removed from below plough level, linking it with the position of other more precisely located foindspots - for example in a fieldwalking survey, or with respect a cropmark complex).

1,741 outreach events were organised in 2009 (71 226 attendees, including 12 865 kids) and 1,881 outreach events were organised in 2010 (104,822 attendees, including 29,794 children).
But still, the British general public has very little idea about the issues concerning artefact hunting and collecting, or (I would hazard a guess) what archaeology in a broader sense is all about. My Mum went to one and said the girl was useless.

"During 2009 and 2010 the PAS's Finds Liaison Officers had regular contact with 177 metal-detecting clubs, attending 1,619 club meetings in 2009 and 2010 (732 and 887 respectively)". And this of course is where a lot of the finds recording is going on. Also at rallies, the summary annual report gives no details of the numbers of fnds recoirded from these two types of FLO activity. It would be useful to see a proper breakdown of these to offset the claims being made about "recording by metal detectorists" which do not take this factor into account.

Ed Vaizey, the metal detecting Culture Minister, said:

"It is widely recognised that both the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act 1996 have been a great success. They are both helping to enrich museum collections, with the most important archaeological discoveries being acquired for the nation. It is a tremendous achievement that the Staffordshire and Frome hoards are now on display in public collections where they can be enjoyed by all." [and we got much of the Twinstead hoard back, didn't we?]

A "tremendous achievement"? To what degree however are current policies leading to the protection of the archaeological record from being dug over in the search for randomly selected collectables for entertainment and profit? To what degree is the PAS "succeeding" in mitigating that, and ensuring "best practice"? What has British archaeology lost in the "partnership" with artefact hunters in addition to a huge amount of credibility?

PACHI BLOG BACK ONLINE, DESPITE UK METAL DETECTORISTS' THREATS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The View From "Fortress Detecting"

.
An article in the Federation of Metal Detectorists (FID) Newsletter by David Wood is worthy of note as an expression of the "Fortress Detecting" mentality in post-PAS-outreach UK.

The fact that the Crosby Garrett helmet slid under the radar of the Treasure Act and within days of coming out of the ground was in a London auction house with the consequent losses to us all was decried by a number of responsible artefact hunters and collectors. There was however another group of artefact hunters who were on the side of the vendors. The article takes an even more militant view. It is interesting to compare the sentiments expressed with those one might expect from a group of (ostensibly) responsible artefact hunters who have been exposed to thirteen years of publicly funded "outreach" intended to instil the principles of "best practice" and through contact with the archaeological establishment instil some understanding of what it is that British archaeology is about and what it is trying to achieve. It starts off notably:

Is my Find a Blessing or a Curse?
We all dream of finding something spectacular, maybe a hoard of celtic coins or perhaps a massive celtic torc. Whatever our personal preference, maybe it is part of the makeup of most detectorists. this familiar daydream that for a special few actually happens. The trouble is that whilst the establishment are always eager to get their hands on anything that is shiny, valuable and old, they resent it being found by ordinary folk and even more having to fork out money, even though the money in question is taken in various taxes from these same "ordinary folk".

Well, of course this is all lies. As we know the metal detectorists of Britain do it out of a (passionate) love of 'istry, and "not fer the munny". They are not - we are constantly assured - "Treasure hunters" at all. Why would one not want to believe that?

More seriously, I really get angered by the anti-establishment claptrap these guys come out with, always trying to make themselves look like the victims of some conspiracy. They are just as bad as the pathetic coineys over the other side of the Atlantic. The British "establishment" (sic) does not "resent" "ordinary folk" taking an interest in the past and finding archaeological remains and recognising them for what they are. Far from it. But are metal detector using treasure finders "ordinary folk" in the same way as the fifty-odd million whose taxes they think should be rewarding them for reporting to the Coroner and handing over to the Crown what by the law of the land is the property of the Crown and thereby the nation? Would they expect a reward for reporting a corpse found in the river or forest to the Coroner too? Also the money which archaeology and heritage gets in Britain does not all come out of "taxes". Wood gets into his stride:

Over the years, they [the "Establishment"] have tried to take over control, of our hobby and the finds we make. They have tried to get legislation in Parliament, used new and existing "special areas" to restrict or licence access, in fact every obstacle they could find to discourage the ordinary man or woman from seeking their own little piece of history".

Let us get this clear. The "special areas" where metal detecting is restricted and which Wood apparently to which wants to have free access are defined on conservation grounds to protect the resources they contain from damage or destruction by individuals (whether they be ordinary men or women "seeking their own little piece of history" or rare birds eggs, orchids or whatever) so they can be enjoyed by present and future generations of ordinary folk. This is - as any truly responsible detector user would have realised - the rationale behind the measures taken to try to prevent the continued despoliation for entertainment and profit of what is, after all, a finite and fragile resource of importance to us all. But then does not tekkie rant like this reveal just how utterly shallow the effects of thirteen years of expensive outreach have been? Responsible detectorists should be leaving the FID in droves on reading such things in its newsletter. Are they?

Referring to the Crosby Garrett Helmet, Wood then continues his outburst:

Problems for the hobby usually start when someone makes a once in a lifetime find like the Roman helmet [...] recently selling for 2000000 pounds. It is hoped that it will not cause the anti-detecting brigade to once again try and interest Parliament in passing legislation to put the hobby in the pocket of the 'Heritage Industry'. Over the years the pattern has had a familiar ring to it. Detectorists make a significant find, the media hype it up (usually exaggerating the importance and value of the find) then the Heritage establishment lobby their friendly MP's and hey presto, the metal detecting hobby has again to battle for its life.

It makes one think that Wood depicts the promised changes in the legislation resulting from the Crosby Garrett fiasco as intended to "put detecting in the pocket of the heritage industry". Does he and those who think like him consider that items like the Crosby Garrett helmet should not be part of everybody's heritage but sold off to the highest private bidder? Does the responsible detectorist thinks there should be a legislational free-for-all on the conversion of Britain's archaeological record into a saleable commodity?

What kind of effects has all this "outreach" been having on attitudes in the collecting community? It seems to me on reading such stuff that the answer is likely to be "not very much", but of course measuring the extent of these changes has not been an interest of the PAS or anyone else, just as long as lots of people keep coming forward with nice items to "record".

[In passing: Is it just those concerned with the heritage in England who can find "friendly MPs"? I bet UK tekkies wish they lived in the US where if recent events reported on this blog are anything to go by, Congressmen no doubt could be found to support their philistinism.]

Wood reminds his readers how, after defeating the County of Kent Bill, the outbreak of catastrophic looting of an archaeological site by metal detector users at Wanborough

resulted in one of the toughest battles waged against the hobby to date. [...] Fortunately, after another tough fight, common sense prevailed and detecting survived. Only time will tell if history will repeat itself. Let us hope things have changed and we will be left to enjoy our hobby in peace.

[Two papers in Suzie Thomas and Peter Stone's Metal Detecting and Archaeology (2008) put those comments into perspective - by Addyman and Thomas].

Wood ends with fighting talk:

However if some spectacular find should once again be used as a cudgel in an attempt to quash the hobby, I'm confident that modern detectorists are just as ready to stand up and be counted, just as their predecessors did in the 1970s and 1980s. For now though, it will pay us all to make sure we do everything by the book so we do not give ammunition to the enemy and keep our eyes out [sic] for anything that looks like the start of an anti-detecting campaign.

Nobody is trying to "quash" artefact hunting, but rather to try and make it as sustainable and non-damaging and archaeologically productive (and thus useful) as possible. Quite clearly we are still a very long way away from achieving that.

Note the motive for appearing to be "responsible" - "so we do not give ammunition to the enemy". Not because they all believe deep in their hearts that this is the right way to behave when collecting bits of the archaeological heritage for profit and entertainment. As I said there is every indication from the unchallenged recurrence of this sort of fighting talk in the UK metal detecting milieu that the lessons and effects of "outreach" have been totally superficial. If there is to be any rationalisation of Britain's laws concerning the preservation of the archaeological heritage we can count on a substantial proportion of the post-outreach artefact hunting community to oppose it as vehemently as the militants of the 1970s and 1980s.

As Wood notes however "times have changed" - such a display of philistinism may well be the last nail in the coffin of the illusion that there can be a "partnership" between archaeology/preservation and artefact hunting and collecting on the basis of the UK's existing legislative norms. This time round the general public - after all also the target of PAS outreach about responsible "finding" - may well see through the façade and start to make their own demands on artefact hunters and policy makers that have let things slide for so long.
.

UK's Shambolic Commercial Cash-in-Hand "Metal Detecting Rallyz"

 

Charles Lloyd in
a fetching anorak

The collocation sovereign together with rallies has bad connotations, regardless this group with the deliberately misspelled name revels in the notoriety:  Sovereign Metal Detecting Rallys (private Facebook page). It was founded on 13th April 2019 and already has 1,4000 members (one in 19 metal detectorists of the Hardy estimate)* If you want to join they ask you right away: "Are you a member of NCMD or FID? With valid insurance? This is compulsory to attend events. Please send proof to admins or you risk being removed as a member. Happy digging.". Once you've done that, you have to agree to the Rules of the Group:

Members agree to abide by these rules:

1 Green Waste. A problem.
Please know measures are taken to reduce this risk. It can happen in spite of this. Please understand it is not deliberate and the risk we take. Please know measures are taken to reduce this risk. It can happen in spite of this. Please understand it is not deliberate and the risk we take. Dig the rubbish and there’s still rewards :)
2 Attending Events.
Please advise if not attending at earliest opportunity. Allowances can be made for emergencies. But failure to attend can result in a double charge for next attending event.
3 Maybe’s ... please do not click this option.
Maybe is not an automatic reserve. We kindly ask that you either click going or not going in order to arrange numbers efficiently. Thankyou.
4 Advertising and selling.
Please do not advertise or sell on the group page unless prior request of permission from Charles Lloyd. Posts will be removed without this courtesy.
5 Be kind and courteous
We're all in this together to create a welcoming environment. Let's treat everyone with respect. Healthy debates are natural, but kindness is required.
6 Respect everyone's privacy
Being part of this group requires mutual trust. Authentic, expressive discussions make groups great, but may also be sensitive and private. What's shared in the group should stay in the group.
7 Insurance.
This is compulsory to attend all events.
8 Filling holes.
Please dig neat holes and fill accordingly. Failure to do so will result in being removed from the event and blocked from the group.
9 Refunds.
Time and effort is put into all areas to avoid green waste but can happen in spite of this. Just as much as ‘good finds’ are not assured. Refunds do not apply as genuine attempts are made to avoid.

It looks like they've had complaints from members for the amount of contaminated green waste on the fields. Also it looks like they've had problems with the landowner seeing on the Group's page (or he would if it were not hidden) how many people will attend and demanding payment accordingly, but some participants did not turn up with the cash in hand payment in an unmarked envelope so the landowner did not get as much as they expected. I wonder why they don't just get people paying online before, everything easy and transparent, like? "Being part of this group requires mutual trust", what does that mean, and why the secrecy? What goes on on this closed antiquities hunters Facebook page? This is like all those looting pages on Facebook that the Antiquities Trafficking and Heritage Anthropology Research (ATHAR) Project are investigating. Perhaps somebody needs to investigate the secret underworld of British pay-to-loot organisations too. Like the taxman. Are the farmers declaring the income from the selling off of antiquities to these people? What about the money raised by participants by selling off the material found and removed, either now or at a later date? How is the cash paid to landowners and how (and where) are the business accounts kept by Sovereign Metal Detecting Rallys, where are the invoices? WHY are British archaeologists not investigating this already?

Note that the Group Rules make no explicit mention of

- Following any health and safety guidelines or regulations,
- Adherence to the Code of Best Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales,
- Adherence to the requirements of national laws (such as the Treasure Act), if you don't fill your holes in nicely, you'll get chucked off the dig, pocket a Bronze Age gold bracelet and ... nothing, but "what happens in teh group stays in the group"
There is no mention here of any upper limit to the value of finds you can walk off with without checking with the landowner fiirst, let alone any requirement to show all and anything to the landowner when you leave their property to get documentation of title.

No mention of making available any health situation risk assessments to members before they travel. Although contaminated land figures prominently in the Group Rules, there is no mention of the liability of Sovereign Metal Detecting Rallys taking money from people to place them on such contaminated land to carry out the activity they paid for ('time and effort to avoid...trust us', is not enough, and NCMD insurance does not cover this). So basically, to judge from what can be seen on their public profile, this group with already 1400 members seems to be a total shambles and unprofessional amateurishness.

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".  

* It's beginning to look to me like Hardy's estimate of 27000 is now too low, this is a new and small group, and yet one in 19 detectorists already belong to it?