New report outlines extent of metal detecting in Scotland for the first time

Historic Environment Scotland (HES) ' Landmark project aims to build relations between metal detectorists and heritage sector' 31 January 2017

The report is the first of its kind to be attempted in Scotland. It was conducted by GUARD Archaeology Ltd, using online questionnaires and one-to-one interviews with detectorists and heritage professionals to find out the extent of metal detecting in Scotland, the different ways it takes place across the country, as well as to ask those involved for their views on how the process of find reporting works. The report found that there are approximately 521 ‘hobbyist’ metal detectorists in Scotland, 87% of whom are male, with a predominant age range between 45 and 55 years old. The areas with the highest recorded activity of metal detecting in Scotland were Perth and Kinross, Fife, Dumfries and Galloway, and the Scottish Borders. Kevin Munro, Senior Designations Officer for Historic Environment Scotland, said: “Anecdotally, we seem to be seeing an increase in the numbers of people participating in metal detecting in Scotland – perhaps due to a number of high profile finds by detectorists in Britain in the past decade. We know that detectorists have a great interest in history, and we hope that the project will help us to ensure that they are aware of the appropriate processes for reporting finds when they are discovered.

The usual old crap, 'detectorists' have less an interest in 'history' than collecting historical items, it is not the same. This is why those 521 hoikers can usually come up with barely 300 items a year for the TTU to put in their reports. In fact, my feeling is this number is too low, IMO there may be another 400 they've not spotted.

The report: ‘Assessment of the Extent and Character of Hobbyist Metal Detecting in Scotland’ is available for download on the Historic Environment Scotland publications page

Finding, Reporting and being Rewarded for Archaeological Treasures in Scotland

.
I am grateful to Andrew Nicholson (HER Officer, Dumfries and Galloway Council) for clarifying (pers. comm.) an issue for me, and with his permission I'd like to share it (slightly edited) with my readers.

There are some very distinct differences in the legal positions either side of the border. In Scotland, the legal position is that all found archaeological material treated as Treasure Trove found belongs to the Crown, the landowner has no ownership rights, so if an award is paid out, the full sum goes to the finder and is not normally split with the landowner. The ‘reward’ is for declaring the material. Some detectorists do have verbal 50/50 agreements with farmers whose land they’re on, but that’s between them rather than a legal position. There are notes in the guidance which even point out that a delay in declaring one' finds can have an effect on any reward:

Ex gratia payment "This is an award made at the discretion of the QLTR to the finder(s) of a chance find. The payment takes into account the circumstances of discovery, the treatment of the object by the finder, the nature of the item(s) and any delays in reporting.” 

“Finders have no ownership rights to found objects unless and until the Crown determines, after they have been reported, not to claim, or subsequently to disclaim. Landowners have no property rights to portable antiquities, nor do sponsors of organized archaeological fieldwork have any claim to any finds made on their projects. Finders must ensure they have any appropriate permission to search land for portable antiquities.” 

 Note the item about sponsors of excavations – it means we won’t have a situation like the one in England where the sponsoring company of a development archaeology project wanted to sell the finds to help recoup their costs. It’s all in the guidance, which is at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/12/04114930/31 Oh, and ignorance of the guidance is, of course, no defence in law

From an archaeological point of view, the law in Scotland is preferable to that south of the border. In Scotland, a single bronze Roman cavalry parade helmet *would* have been Treasure Trove, and lithics, pottery assemblages and everything else are covered too. Note also that the valuation can be affected by how the finder treats the object, as well as the time they take to notify.

The guidance also includes a few other comments worth noting:

Found items from anywhere in Scotland (on land, in buildings, from inland waters, from within harbours, and from the coast and other tidal waterways down to mean low tidal water level) which are not otherwise owned and for which there is not a demonstrable heir (bona vacantia) are the property of the Crown at Scots common law.

Found portable antiquities must be reported to the Crown by the finder through the Treasure Trove Unit or an appropriate intermediary (e.g. a museum). Misappropriation of found portable antiquities is the crime of theft and dishonest dealing in such items is the crime of reset, or receiving stolen property. [...] Failure to report the finding of portable antiquities or the removal of found portable antiquities from Scotland (including to elsewhere in the United Kingdom) may provide evidence of misappropriation. [...] Non-reported portable antiquities have the status of being unclaimed Crown property. They cannot be owned by anyone else if the Crown has not been given the opportunity, by reporting, of exercising its right of ownership. [...] There is no time limit with respect to nonreporting of items which thus remain the property of the Crown in perpetuity.

Hoard (or cache) Two or more items in association which are judged to have been deliberately deposited together.

Again, note only two or more associated items, so two flint arrowheads would count.

Portable antiquity This term in Scotland covers any ownerless item (bona vacantia) which is portable, has been humanly manufactured or modified, is of any size, type or material, is not integral to a site or monument, and has been found in Scotland.
Finders are required, within one month of its initial discovery, to report anything believed to be a portable antiquity (see section 2.5 above for the legal position). A delay in the reporting of portable antiquities may have a negative impact on any potential ex gratia payment.

Participants in metal-detecting rallies or similar events have an individual responsibility to report their finds, and organizers of such rallies and events should remind participants of this fact.

The finder should provide as accurate a location as possible for the findspot. Wilful misreporting of a findspot or the circumstances of finding is an offence.

The finder must take care not to damage a portable antiquity in any way. Objects must not be improperly cleaned, repaired, or marked.

 Sometimes it will be in the best interests of a portable antiquity to leave it where it has been found for investigation by an archaeologist. For example, removing organic items from peat can easily damage them and disturbing an object which is part of a hoard can destroy valuable information. Such discoveries should be notified immediately to the TTU, to a Local Authority archaeologist, to Historic Scotland, or to a museum. Such notification will in no way prejudice the reporter’s position as the original finder for Treasure Trove purposes; indeed, such responsible actions are likely to be reflected favourably in SAFAP’s determination of ex gratia payments.

So basically everything is done to encourage finders to report finds.

Mr Nicholson also pointed out that this by no means refers just to artefact hunters with metal detectors.  In the case of the items from Dumfries and Galloway illustrated in the guidance – a Neolithic axe TT.74/07, a Bronze Age spearhead TT.62 07, Bronze Age sword TT.33 07 and an Iron Age harness mount TT.105 06, none were found by a detectorist. "Instead one dog-walker, one gold-panner and two ploughmen got the honours. Not that the detectorists don’t find anything of value, but the single most valuable item we’ve had through in the last decade was a late medieval gold ring with inset stones [it could be identified because a number of sitters for portraits by Holbein wore similar ones], and the guys who found it had been into the HER to get maps and check that there was nothing known in the field before they went detecting".

Not in it For the Money, Or Perhaps We Are Really...

Reportedly, a treasure hunter is being sued by the Church of Scotland over a record £2million haul of Viking relics he found on their land (Kevin Duguid, 'Treasure hunter sued by Church of Scotland over record £2million haul of Viking relics he found on their land' The Scottish Sun, 14th September 2019) Kirk chiefs are said to be demanding Derek McLennan, 52, hands over £1million after he allegedly snubbed a written agreement to give them half the value of his bounty. This refers to a much trumpeted find from Dumfries and Galloway in 2014

The metal detector buff now faces a legal challenge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh [...] One source said last night [...] “The church could do a lot of good with that money. It was church land they were on [...] “You don’t want to get in a legal wrangle over it. Why would anyone let him on to their land again — or any other detectorist?” [...] the retired businessmen, from Ayr, was promised the bumper reward three years later under Scots treasure trove laws. His payment was raised through more than £430,000 in public donations, £1million from the National Heritage Memorial Fund, £150,000 from the Scottish Government and £400,000 from the Art Fund. [...] In this case there was a written agreement between the general trustees of the Church of Scotland and Derek.” [...] The Church of Scotland confirmed their court action.

His former detecting pal talked about the fracas:

The minister said charity champion Derek felt let down by experts drafted in after his discovery. He added: “He felt very badly treated by the treasure trove system in Scotland who decide on rewards. Experts took control and he was pushed to the edge a bit. He did everything by the book in terms of working with the system. “But he felt because of the way he was treated by the system he wanted to put the whole thing behind him.” 

Here's a text about his complaint about his 'treatment'  and here's about those public funds he gets.

UPDATE
It seems it could be even worse if you look at the comments. A "Susannah McSweeney" alleged on 15th September:

Derek also broke gentelman" agreements with his team mates, including my husband. There was 4 of them including Derek's wife sharon, not just the church of Scotland. [...] The other 2 men including my husband were also snubbed by Derek after the viking hoard was claimed and since broken off all contact and never had any recognition for being there to unearth the treasure. What was done was shady and despicable.

What is worth noting however is that the Church claims there was a written agreement, not just a "gentleman's agreement". If what Mrs McSweeney alleges is true, one detectorist first pushes aside three other blokes, and then attempts to lay claim to the entire reward for himself alleging that he was "sidelined by the experts". If that is true, all very odd and immature.

The BBC also has picked up the story: BBC, 'Church of Scotland sues for share of £2m Viking treasure', 15th September 2019.

There is an added detail in another source (Russell Blackstock, 'Kirk to sue treasure hunter claiming he reneged on promise to share proceeds of £2 million Viking hoard found buried on church land' The Sunday Post September 15, 2019):

Following the find, Mr McLennan and his detectorist wife Sharon launched a firm called Beyond The Beep, to work with the Coming Home Centre for ex-forces personnel in Glasgow and veterans’ mental health charity Combat Stress. [...] Derek McLennan found the Viking treasure just months after discovering hundreds of medieval coins in Twynholm, Kirkcudbrightshire, in another landmark find. He only started using a metal detector a few years before two stunning discoveries.

Beyond the Beep does not seem to be all that active these days. Here's John Winter enthusing about it. But here's the Minelab spiel on it:

We'd like to introduce Sharon McKee and Derek McLennan of Beyond The Beep, Scotland, to our Treasure Talk audience. Sharon and Derek have 12 years of combined detecting experience and for the last few years have used a wide range of Minelab machines, from the GO-FIND Series through to the GPX 5000 for personal detecting and to promote responsible detecting through their not-for-profit company, Beyond The Beep. Since February 2015, the couple have been regularly providing outdoor learning experiences in schools, and they have also created and implemented a detecting programme for veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). [...] Derek mostly uses the CTX 3030, but when on a hoard site, the GPX 5000 comes out, as he loves the depth these machines can reach. [...] After the discovery of The Galloway Viking Hoard, the enterprising pair created their company Beyond The Beep to teach about responsible detecting and to promote the health and educational benefits that detecting brings [...] The programme is also supported by the National Council of Metal Detecting in the UK, to which Beyond The Beep is affiliated.

All in this together, eh? Derek McLennan is also a ML detexpert Now that GPX is one of those "depth advantage" machines that Heritage Action and I have been going on about for a good few years now, but the implications of which are being systematically ignored by the archaeological community, but look at this remark:

Last week, Mr McLennan’s friend and fellow metal detector enthusiast, the Rev David Bartholomew, who was with him when he made his discovery, told how [...] Mr McLennan had searched the unidentified area of Church of Scotland land for more than a year in the hunt for treasure. [...] Mr McLennan, 50, unearthed the valuables two feet beneath the ground – well below the depth his machine should pick up a signal. [...] Mr Bartholomew said: “I would never have found the hoard. Derek did because he is a gifted detectorist. “I was just pleased to be part of an amazing day.”

and would like that money from a pagan hoard to go to the Church and used for the benefit of the parishoners.

Scotland’s buried heritage looted by treasure hunters

*

There is somewhat belated official concern that Scotland's archaeological heritage is being plundered by treasure hunters who fail to declare their finds in the national interest. In Scotland, any finds classed as treasure, including items such as axe heads and stone carvings as well as gold and jewels, must be declared to the Crown, which will pass them on to museums or other suitable collections for public display and study. Before any smartass but uninformed US coiney suggests it, Scotland awards finders full market value for finds added to the national collections like their English counterpart.

A report recently published by Crown officials admits what some archaeologists have been saying for ages, that there has been “serious under-reporting” of artefacts found by artefact hunters (Chris Watt, 'Scotland’s buried heritage looted by treasure hunters', Herald Scotland 17 Feb 2011):

Professor Ian Ralston, chairman of the Scottish Archaeological Finds Allocation Panel, said: “If you look at the amount of stuff found in Northumberland and Cumbria compared to the south of Scotland, there has to be a suspicion that there is a significant number of undeclared finds”. The problem is brought to light in the Scottish Treasure Trove annual report, published yesterday by the Queen’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer.

The report points out that the difference between the English and Scottish system is that objects found by artefact hunters and collectors north of a line on a map are liable to be added to public collections in the public interest, while south of the line collectors can add the stuff to their own private collections. All the arguments about "metal detectorists" contributing to the common good by recovering items are shown to be nonsense by this situation, what it is about is not "saving the 'eritidge" but about making a personal collection. As Watt points out "with treasures (sic) remaining in the hands of finders, the scheme south of the Border is seen by some critics as selfish". Indeed it is, no doubt about it - but its not the only area of antiquity collecting and trading that places selfish self-interest above all other considerations, such as decency, honesty and respect of the law.

But look at this:

There are around 100 members of Scotland’s two metal detecting clubs, according to Alastair Hacket, secretary of the Edinburgh-based Scottish Detector Club, with at least 100 more who pursue the hobby independently. Numbers have risen in recent years thanks to high profile successes like that of David Booth, the novice from Stirling who found £1 million-worth of gold in 2009 on his first outing with his new metal detector. The safari park worker received a £462,000 reward.

Just 200 in the whole country? Or is the number closer to 2000?

Vignette: Not-the-'British'-flag.

Scotland Lacks Numismatic Expertise?

*

I was interested in a comment at the end of the article by Chris Watt ('Scotland’s buried heritage looted by treasure hunters', Herald Scotland 17 Feb 2011) which indicates that numismatics is given low academic priority in Scotland:

Most discoveries in Scotland involve small artefacts like coins, but the Treasure Trove report warns that expertise in this area is now lacking due to the retirement of the country’s leading numismatist. The National Museums of Scotland has not replaced its coin expert, the report said, meaning that officials face the prospect of bringing a coin-dealer up from London to handle Scots finds.

Surely if there are no local numismatists capable of doing the job, it's probably easier to send batches down south. Does it have to be a dealer though? Why not knowledgeable collector (we are always being told by the coineys that there are such). Anyway in the majority of cases, can't this be done online these days? So the ACCG could help out too.

I suppose now we'll be hearing the coineys alleging that if the state gathers such finds for the public collections, this hinders the growth of coin collecting in Scotland, which deprives the nation of such expertise. I wonder though how many Scottish collectors are patrons of eBay and V-Coins regardless of what happens to local finds that are reported. And where do the finds that are not reported go? According to the coiney arguments, if the state takes them off finders reporting them, the rest must be melted down to create "tourist trinkets", eh?



Vignette: map for US collectors of dugup ancient coins who have difficulty in distinguishing "England" from "Britain". Scotland is the orangy bit at the top.

The scale of Illegal artefact hunting in Scotland

We are promised that very soon the report on illegal artefact hunting in the UK (the so-called "Nighthawking Survey") will be published. Some results have been leaked which sound a bit dubious, so we are all eager to see the basis for these remarks.

The publication in Scotland of a Code of practice about Treasure trove in Scotland sets out the obligations of finders of archaeological artefacts (more than 300 years old) in that country. As everybody with a metal detector in the UK knows - or should know, Scotland has different laws to England and Wales (and Northern Ireland differs from both). It's not too confusing however as all archaeological finds must, by law, be reported when they may be retained by the crown (whose property they are, in which case the finder gets a reward and the finds go to a public collection) or released back to the finder to do with as they please. To engage in the latter without going through the former formality is illegal. Anyone failing to declare a find risks a potential prison sentence. That's what every metal detectorist in Scotland (and people buying artefacts from them) should know.

The Treasure reports show that annually about 300 or so finds are reported to the Treasure Trove Unit in Edinburgh. There are however in Scotland probably around 1000 metal detectorists - so it seems pretty clear that by no means are all of them obeying the law. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, most of them seem to be practicing their hobby totally disregarding the law, and disregarding the right of their fellow citizens to have access to information about the past which they want to take away in tangible pieces.

A newspaper account about the new code (Julia Horton Treasure hunters urged to read the rules before seeking their fortune, The Herald, February 04 2009) asserts that "up to 10,000 objects including silver coins and jewels are now found each year", meaning that the 300 reported items are a mere token of what is disappearing from the archaeological record annually in Scotland too. That is despite the very clear laws. That is despite the outreach that has been done to tell artefact hunters of their obligations. That is despite Scottish metal detectorists not being uneducated toothless peasants who know-no-better living in villages "each of which has its own melting pot" to which to take the metal scrap scavenged off the fields by subsistence diggers as some apologists for the "no-questions-asked" antiquities market would have us believe is the situation in all the "source countries".

The reaction to this news on a US metal detectorists' forum was revealing: A certain "Emdees" writes: Yikes! Hope they never do that in the U.S.! and a "RickO" replied...Try as I may, I will never understand this....my belief is that found items belong to the finder - period. Hmmm. Still, over most of the US there's not much chance of metal detectorists coming across too many metal artefacts older than 300 years, is there? I suspect that this is part of the problem US collectors have understanding attitudes of those of us who actually live and work in the "source countries" of the collectables they covet.

My Reply to A Media Enquiry II

 making money

There were some more questions from the inquisitive journalist (see above) prior to having a phone interview. As my readers know, archaeology is not really rocket science... but look how much explanation a simple topic gets to be when it's an answer to questions about some basic issues:

[questions] [...]
Its a bit complicated

A long explanation, might save time later....

Firstly, Britain has somewhat different approach to antiquities from much of the rest of the world – where antiquities belong to the state, so there all artefact hunting and collecting is illegal.

In Britain, it is legal to look for and collect/buy/sell them.

BUT there are three main divisions within that. England and Wales (together) Scotland and Northern Ireland. THEN on top of that is the Treasure Act which is what I think you are getting confused over.

- In Scotland, you can go artefact hunting (for example metal detecting) wherever you like, with the landowner’s permission, UNLESS the site is protected by law (scheduled, site of Special scientific interest etc). BUT almost everything historical you find (with some exceptions) must by law be reported – and then the Treasure Trove Unit (TTU) would look at it and decide what should be done, whether it goes to a museum and you get a (market value) reward, whether you (and the landowner) get it back etc. https://treasuretrovescotland.co.uk/found-something/ (check this out too – with reference to the reference of the Scottish system to the Treasure Act of England and Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove#Scotland ) So, in Scotland, Illegal metal detecting would be as you say finding something and not reporting it, just hanging onto it. As I said in my first message, over 1000 metal detectorists MUST be finding well over the 2-300 objects that are reported from the whole country each year. They apparently are just digging up stuff and illegally hanging on to it... If that is so, there are a lot of metal detectorists acting illegally in Scotland.

In Northern Ireland, there you actually need a permit to go metal detecting in the first place, and have the obligation to report everything you find. But the whole situation there is so nontransparent that I’ve given up trying to find out what’s happening there. Illegal detecting there would be going out without a permit (most of them do that) and keeping what they find (it seems that a lot do that because ver few permits seem to be being applied for) - but to be honest, I’d not write too much on that.

England and Wales , you can go artefact hunting (for example metal detecting) whever you like, with the landowner’s permission, UNLESS the site is protected by law (scheduled, site of Special scientific interest etc). So that’s the same as Scotland BUT the difference is that in England and Wales the 1996 Treasure Act applies (here is the text if you really want to know... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/24/contents: but it is succinctly summarised in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996).

And I think this is what you meant. If the thing or things you have found fall into that legal definition of “Treasure” (horrible word, because of course archaeological finds are scientific evidence, not Treasure), you are obliged to report it/them within 14 days. If you don’t you go to jail (search the internet or my blog for “Leominster hoard” for a recent case where four guys were jailed for doing precisely that).

But the majority of things artefact hunters/ metal detectorists find do not fall into that definition. Bronze buckles, brooches, seals, iron swords, single finds of Roman coins, Medieval coins, stone age axeheads and so on. All of these are archaeologically significant, but do not fall into the legal definition of Treasure (IMO the law needs to be changed so that they do, in the way that they do in Scotland).

Therefore in England and Wales, they set up the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) to record the non-treasure finds. https://finds.org.uk/ https://finds.org.uk/database

Most people belive the spin they put on what they are doing, you may gather that I am more outspokenly critical of it and think it is a huge cop-out, and what they write about themselves and their achievements needs to be read with a critical eye – for what they DO NOT say.

But the theory is that “finders” report what they find so the things can be recorded on a public database – thus saving the information that would be lost of the objects vanished into a private collection or on eBay without a record. It is voluntary – no obligation. Motivations for reporting finds will vary, but the main gain is that the Scheme provides good propaganda for the hobbyists. They make it look OK to dig myriad little holes all over archaeological sites “because we get the information” (this is a false argument, but I’ll leave it there). So then we get foisted on us a picture of these people “helping archaeology” and these are “the good guys” doing it legally, while the bad guys that “get metal detecting a bad name” are those naughty “nighthawks”.

So the propaganda machine gives us a nice cardboard cut-out “enemy of the people” – the law-breaking nighthawks that creep onto people’s property and steal their stuff – or worse go onto protected sites (such as Hadrian’s Wall) pilfering the history.

But it is not black and white at all (Black characters =nighthawks/ white characters =the mythical “majority” that not only do not break any law [because basically the law says they can do what they like, really] and also report all their finds – hooray)

The problem is that the real majority consists of a very large number (and since the PAS hide information about how many detectorists they see each year – we do not know how many that is, but I’ll guess there is a reason they hide those data) of people that ask the landowner nicely, or go to legal commercially organised artefact hunts BUT who report nothing or very little of what they find. These are the very big “grey” area. Neither black, nor white. They are not nighthawks, but neither are they “responsible detectorists” or doing anything useful or ethical. But they are destroying the archaeological record for the sake of collectable for themselves. They are selfishly stealing knowledge from the rest of us, perfectly legally, but unethically. And nobody is talking about them, that therefore allows them to hitch a free ride of shared legitimacy from the people that do responsibly record what they find.

Suppose the PAS were to release the figures of the number of individual detectorists that voluntarily reported NON-TREASURE finds in 2019. What would it be? 6000 maybe? That would leave 21000 who they’ve not had contact with. But I’ll bet the number is lower than 6000.

So that’s what my problem is, of colleagues that just want to talk about the black characters. I’d rather see the grey ones scrutinised, and also scrutiny of my jobsworth colleagues that refuse to admit there is even a problem.

And wouldn't it save a lot of words just to ban artefact hunting and artefact collecting in the UK, without all these divisive regulations?

Professor Karl, The PAS and the Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz (IV): Unreported Finds by “Members of the Public”, i.e., Artefact Hunters

.
In Professor Raimund Karl’s polemic text ("On the Highway to Hell: Thoughts on the Unintended Consequences for Portable Antiquities of § 11(1) Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz" he says (p. 114), gratuitously misquoting Georg Dehio out of context in the process, that it is important that finds made by artefact hunters are reported, for:

"if the BDA is to know what archaeological heritage needs to be protected, it first needs to know where it exists. And for that, it needs the information that only the public can provide".

Yet how can it "protect" that which it cannot protect from looting, because to get finds reported (I understand Karl is arguing) we need to lift the restrictions on looting?

Is this really "information that only the public can provide"? Absolutely not, an alternative solution, applied successfully elsewhere, is for the Historic Environment Record not to be based on ad hoc and random measures like the public reporting this and that, but a systematic survey of the country by trained personnel as we have in Poland. Then the archaeological community does not need to be reliant on pandering to the plunderers and can concentrate on keeping them off archaeological sites. The Bangor Professor completely ignores this manner of resolving the issue he raises. Why?

There is then some artefact-fetishist stuff (see the posts below) page 115 before the author attempts to show "that this is not just more grey theory" ("Finds reporting and metal detectorists in Austria" pp 115-124).

The author has conducted several partially related studies into finds reporting and metal detectorist practices in Austria [...], is currently carrying out a questionnaire survey among metal detectorists in Austria.

While stressing that this is still in progress, Karl suggests that "sufficient data have been collected to discuss the preliminary results of the surveys". In fact Dr Karl has been gathering data to an extent that should shame the thirteen million pound PAS who has not been able to gather the same kind of data from their liaison with and "partnership" of the metal detecting artefact hunters for coming up to a decade and a half (I want to highlight some of these data in a post below this as it is useful comparative material).

Dr Karl's awareness that "there might be a problem only came through a very rough comparison of reporting numbers of finds by members of the public" in England and Wales, Scotland and the figures from Austria. Dr Karl's figure1 "Comparison of numbers of compulsory finds reports in England and Wales, Scotland and Austria" shows the number of English and even Welsh Treasure cases skyrocketing, while Scotland and Austria both show a tendency to drop in 2001-2 (in Great Britain the foot and mouth years). In both Scotland (pop. c. 5,222,100) and Austria (pop. c. 8,414,638) the numbers of both reported accidental, artefact-hunted finds and official excavations hover around the 300-500 per annum mark, while England and Wales (pop. c. 54,452,000) the number of Treasure finds alone shoots up to 800 per annum after 2003, reaching a peak in 2007-8.

Dr Karl's Figure 2 presents a "comparison of total number of finds reports (including compulsorily and voluntarily reportable finds) in Austria and England and Wales" (note this: "statistically extrapolated from PAS annual reports values for 2005 and 2007 highlighted as darker symbols are figures actually reported in PAS annual reports"). Mercifully, these seem to be finds records, rather than the more commonly spun "number of finds reported" figures. As I said earlier, the "annual numbers of reported Treasure in England and Wales" which "hovered around 20 per year, and have since multiplied by a factor of around 40" is a spurious figure as it reflects a change in the law and the manner it was applied.

Karl claims that his statistics show that the "willingness of the public to report archaeological finds has dramatically increased in England and Wales since the inception of the PAS", while "in Austria and Scotland, on the other hand, where all finds must be reported, the willingness of the public to report finds seems to have stagnated or even considerably declined". What he does not mention is the fundamental difference between the three systems. In England and Wales there are FIFTY members of staff (equivalent to about a tenth of the entire archaeological workforce of Austria) going out and actively seeking items from artefact hunters to boost the size of the database. A fundamental element of this are their frequent visits to several hundred metal detecting clubs (which are not present in any numbers in either Austria or Scotland) and dozens of high-density finds producing commercial artefact hunting rallies every year (likewise not present in either Scotland or Austria). If the true figures were ever known, it would be seen that these two types of activity account for a substantial number of the records added to the PAS records annually. This is quite a different thing from members of the artefact hunting community coming forward with their finds. [I would urge the PAS to come clean over these figures for the benefit of people like Dr Karl interested in these issues (they will not of course)].

Dr Karl suggests that "it is impossible to give accurate or even reasonably extrapolated figures for voluntary finds reporting in England and Wales before the introduction of the PAS, since this information was not consistently recorded". It is unclear whether he has looked at the report of Denison and Dobinson (1995, Metal detecting and archaeology in England) which (Appendix I, Tables IX-XI and Figs 7-18) considered just this point. There are figures for museums which answered a questionnaire. When extrapolated to museums countrywide (Barford and Swift forthcoming Chapter 12), the results are quite surprising when compared with the pro-PAS spin. It turns out that reporting of finds by artefact hunters may not have been all that far below current levels, which are simply (because many PAS staff are based in the same museums) continuing a well-established pattern.

Incidentally there seems to be a problem getting Austrian archaeologists reporting finds too, with 435 of them, only 195 professional archaeologists reported finds in 2008. "In 1987 [before the restricting legislation], 481 finds reports were included in the FÖ, of which 371 came from amateur archaeologists [...] In total, 131 amateur archaeologists reported finds, of which 48 reported on their own and 83 reported together with professional archaeologists", (p. 118)

How Many "Metal detectorists" in Scotland?

.
Generally trying to extract any meaningful information from the 'statistics' trotted out in Britain about artefact hunting and collecting is rather like banging your head against a brick wall. One of the points I have been making for years is that the propaganda of success figures like those in the PAS annual Reports only make sense if we know how many artefact hunters of what types (for there are several) are doing what where. It is blindingly obvious that the people who should be gathering these data are the body charged with liaison with them and which is required to report on progress. Well, since after a decade or so of that body not doing this and merely making stab-in-the-dark guesses (ones favourable to the propaganda of success story of course) I had to produce some information on it myself for something I was writing.

One of the areas I had difficulties with was Scotland , where "metal detecting" operates in somewhat different conditions than further south in the British Isles, and also the law on finds is different(NB, the area is not covered by the PAS). There is for example a paucity of metal detecting clubs compared with regions south of the border. If the proportions of metal detectorists to non-metal detectorists north of the border are the same as those south of the border, it would mean that there should be somewhere in the region of 850 active "metal detectorists" in Scotland. This has always seemed to me a rather high figure for a number of reasons. I was interested therefore to come across an estimate in a rather nicely written (apart from the dreadfully corny title) article ('Can you Dig it?') by journalist Peter Ross in the Scotsman on 25th July 2010. He does not give the source of the estimate, but for what it is worth, he says:

Hacket is a slender man of 61 in a baseball cap and jeans. He lives in Edinburgh and is secretary of the Scottish Detector Club. There are around 200 serious detectorists in Scotland, and a few hundred more for whom it is a passing fancy.

Now it may be that this is just a quote of the membership numbers of the Scottish Detector Club, the website of which does not give the number of members. But then there are, or have recently been, a number of other metal detecting clubs in Scotland:
The Scottish Artefact Recovery Group
The Scottish Searchers
Ayreshire Research Detector Group - no website
Antonine Metal Detectors Club - wot, no website?
Grampian Detectorists Club - defunct
Highland Historical Search Society
ICI MD Club - one connected with a place of work, now apparently defunct.

Is it in fact the case (given the difference between the two estimates) that in Scotland somebody "only intrested in the histry" is four times less prone to becoming an artefact hunter than in England and Wales? To what might this be attributed? The difference in the legislation abouyt what happens to finds? The absence of a PAS telling everybody what a wonderful thing it has we have people draining archaeological finds out of the archaeological record into scattered ephemeral personal collections? Or the fact that its so cold out most of the year that walking around a field for hours on end is less fun? Or perhaps Scottish people have in general a more responsible attitude to the archaeological record than those down south? What is clear is that however many of them there may be, they are less prone to forming themselves into clubs (and using the internet to propagate the hobby) than their southern counterparts.

Scottish Treasure Discovery: Local Versus 'National' Heritage?

Here is an interesting heritage debate brewing: New campaign backs Galloway Viking treasure bid BBC 22 February 2017. This is about that mid-ninth or tenth century hoard of more than 100 gold and silver objects found by Ayreshire artefact hunter Derek McLennan at an undisclosed location on pastureland owned by the Church of Scotland.

A new campaign is backing a bid to see a Viking treasure hoard discovered in Dumfries and Galloway go on display in the region. The Galloway Viking Hoard Campaign (GVHC) wants to see the items put in a new Kirkcudbright art gallery. Dumfries and Galloway Council is attempting to secure the treasure for the region. The GVHC said it was concerned a bid by National Museums Scotland could see the items end up in Edinburgh. The final decision on where the artefacts are diplayed lies with the Treasure Trove Panel. Cathy Agnew, who chairs the campaign which launched this week, said:

"This is a time for Scotland to take the lead. The Galloway Viking hoard is quite extraordinary and should have pride of place in a specially created exhibition space in the new Kirkcudbright art gallery. Remarkable finds have so often been whisked away from the communities where they were discovered only to become a small feature in a large national museum. This is a very old-fashioned approach and in 2017 we should be making sure that regions fully benefit from their cultural riches."

She said the collection could be a "powerful magnet" to bring in visitors. David Devereux, GVHC vice chair, said: "Some of the items in the hoard are of breathtaking beauty and could become icons for the region, spurring people across the world to discover more about its distinctive past - and the people, lives, cultures and kingdoms that existed before Scotland was born." [...] National Museums Scotland has described the find as of "considerable national and international significance". It said that if it acquired the hoard it would save it for the nation and ensure it was seen by "people from Scotland, the rest of the UK and internationally".

UK: New National Reports, "Heritage Really Counts",

.

In the UK, this CBA press release is of interest:

This week Historic Scotland published Scotland's Historic Environment Audit 2010 http://www.heritageaudit.org.uk/findings.htm> and English Heritage launched Heritage Counts 2010 on behalf of the heritage sector in England. For Wales, an equivalent report was launched by Cadw in September, Valuing the Welsh Historic Environment . All three reports highlight the important contribution that investment in the historic environment makes to the economy. 'Investing in heritage doesn't just make us feel better, it makes sound economic sense'.

In Scotland, it is estimated that the historic environment contributes over £2.3 billion (2.6%) to its national gross value added and is a major employer, supporting over 60,000 full time jobs (2.5% of Scotland's employment). In Wales, it is reported that the historic environment's direct contribution to the nation's income is about £1.8 billion, mainly through tourism, and it helps support the equivalent of more than 30,000 full-time jobs.

For England, Heritage Counts illustrates the multiplier effect of investment in heritage. Every £1 invested in a heritage attraction generates £1.70 in additional economic activity; every £1 invested in historic environment regeneration creates £1.60. As a key driver of tourism, heritage also contributes to a major area of employment providing jobs directly and indirectly for c2.6 million people.

Across England and Scotland, there are also significant increases in visits to heritage sites and in membership of heritage organisations. Volunteering continues to flourish. The CBA's research into the voluntary sector in archaeology features in Heritage Counts 2010, showing there are over 2000 such groups and societies active in the UK. In England, there are an estimated 485,500 adults volunteering in the wider heritage and in Scotland over 18,500, undertaking a wide variety of tasks from participating in archaeological projects and conservation area advisory panels, to running civic societies and volunteering at heritage attractions.[...]

See http://www.britarch.ac.uk/news/101013-heritagematters

Obviously these figures illustrate the opposite too, if sites are looted into oblivion to satisfy an increasingly voracious no-questions-asked market (generating jobs numbered in their - low - hundreds rather than tens of thousands or millions), then the power of these sites to generate income on a local and national scale is correspondingly sharply reduced.

I also wonder how these figures are calculated (I can't avoid the impression that the results were engineered to persuade politicians that money should continue to be spent on culture in these cash-strapped times and we can never have too much culture). I wonder in particular whether spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to treasure hunters so another museum can exhibit yet one more shiny thing is really generating revenue. Will Manuel, the burger flipper from Texas really be getting on a train to Birmingham in his two-week whistlestop trip to England just because the Staffordshire treasure is there?
.

Investigating Culture Crime in Scotland

Or are they all only
 beach detectorists?

In Scotland, the authorities are reportedly 'stepping up the pressure on heritage crime', writes Alison Campsie ('Meet the team hunting those who would steal Scotland’s history' The Scotsman 23rd December 2019). The article however largely concentrates on the issue of damage done to scheduled monuments

In 2019, around 100 cases of heritage crime were under investigation by Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and police. In the five years before, there were a total of 40 cases [...] Inspector Alan Dron is the chair of the Scottish Heritage Crime Group, which was set up in April to crack down on offences against Scotland’s oldest and most important buildings and landmarks. With 8,000 scheduled monuments to protect, 47,000 listed buildings and 47 protected shipwrecks under his watch, the task is a considerable one. [...] HES and Treasure Trove, which manages finds of artefacts of historic value, are among those who sit on the heritage crime group, which shares information and investigatory updates about offences.[...] Illegal metal detecting [...] had also come to the attention of the heritage crime desk [...] Theft of cultural artefacts are more rare, Inspector Dron said, with some objects heading into private collections and others being lined up for a sale on the black market.

The problem is that Sam Hardy's work suggests there are 1,447+ detectorists in Scotland, yet according to the last report (here)  less than 200 items or groups of items were reported to the TTU as the law requires. That corresponds to one in seven finding one reportable (collectable) item per year, the other six apparently cheerfully brave the Scottish weather week in and week out and take a perverse pleasure in finding nothing but canslaw, modern bottle caps and ringpulls.  Either we have to accept that Scottish metal detectorists are a bit 'weak in the heed', or there are a lot of them finding almost as much as their metal detecting fellows south of the border and are simply keeping it for themselves. Are those acting illegally by not reporting finds being actively investigated by the Scottish Heritage Crime Group? How?

'Scotland's heritage sites under attack from thieves, vandals and treasure hunters',

 

                  .                            

Sandra Dick, 'Scotland's heritage sites under attack from thieves, vandals and treasure hunters', The Herald 1st August 2021.

Incidents of illegal metal detecting [...] are said to have soared during the pandemic [...] as hunters scoured the landscape for trinkets. [...] Peter McGrath, head of physical security at Historic Environment Scotland (HES), said crimes at its sites across Scotland have spiked since March last year [...] “We have seen an increase in metal detecting, wild camping, fire starting and general vandalism. “We have found a great deal of amateur interest in metal detecting in locations such as the Antonine Wall, where we found a number of incidents of digging. “There’s a perhaps bigger group who found metal detecting as a hobby during that period of time who are not aware of the illegal issues, but there are also individuals who know exactly what they are doing. “The Antonine Wall is a real target for metal detectorists because of lot remains unexplored below the surface making it a particularly attractive location for unscrupulous metal detectorists”. He added that the potential damage caused by illegal metal detectorists was “unquantifiable”, with fears artefacts are sold online or disappear into private collections.

Well, of course this is totally typical of the object-centric view of the British archaeologists in general. Damage is done to sites. Archaeologists study sites. Archaeological context is in the sites. How many times does that need repeating?  

Scotland has 8,000 scheduled monuments, 47,000 listed buildings and 47 protected shipwrecks – making the challenge of protecting them all from potential damage or criminal activities almost impossible.  

One person's protected site is another man's happy hunting ground for a legal hobby. 

Breaking: New Official Estimate of Scale of Collection-Driven Exploitation of Archaeological Record [UPDATED]

     rough visualisation of a trend       

 
As repeatedly mentioned on this blog, the public-funded Portable Antiquities Scheme has consistently failed to give the public any official estimate of the number of people exploiting the archaeological record as a source of collectable artefacts. The best they could do, after many years of the question being raised and their refusal to address it, was in August 2014 in their Guide for Researchers (p. 14). Based on previous estimates (including the NCMD, Thomas, Barford and Heritage Action) the PAS said eight years ago: "we estimate that there are around 9,600 metal detector users across England and Wales". Rather low, I would say. As I have written elsewhere, I accept Hardy's (2017) figure of 27000 as much more accurate. Though I have not written this up, I have also in recent months begun to suspect that this number should have been upped to 30000 (blue square in the figure), leaving the PAS' 2014 attempt well behind.

I was therefore very interested and disturbed to see the PAS' new estimate, fresh from the press. This appeared first in an odd two page document published recently by the PAS 'Managing/Meeting Finder’s Expectations' currently accessible (only) from the website of the National Council for Metal Detecting (why not the PAS website?). Of course, it being the dozy old PAS, they cannot write it clearly in relation to what they actually, themselves, do. Look at this:

There are as many as 40,000 people metal-detecting in the UK, and although PAS is keen to record as many finds as possible, it is not practical for FLOs to record every find made by each detectorist, as well as finds made by the wider public also.

Duh. The PAS and FLOs DO NOT cover the whole UK. They are responsible for recording finds from England and Wales, so why give a total for all detectorists in two other countries for which they are not responsible? On what are these figures based? Of course they do not say. One hopes a paper is already in print backing this up (but really, as a a long-time PAS-watcher, I'm willing to bet that there is not).

[UPDATE: It surfaced again soon after, also without any reference to where they were getting the numbers forom. This time it was on page 3 (by Hartwig Fischer Director of the British Museum) of the Portable Antiquities Scheme Annual Report 2021 where it says simply: "There might be as many as 40,000 active metal-detectorists in the United Kingdom" (note: "might be" now)].

By the way, if the population of the UK is 67.33 million, and the number of detector using artefact hunters in the UK is 40,000, it means that one in 1683 citizens is [or is it "might be"?] a metal detectorist. That's pretty disturbing.

What can we do with these figures? Let's see. The PAS database (for Saturday 11th December 2021 until Sunday 11th December 2022) contains 43018 records containing information on the findspots of 53312 artefacts. Unfortunately there is no information given on the number of metal detector using finders that represents. Since that total includes items reported by members of the general public too, how many artefact hunters are responsibly coming forward with artefacts from collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record for recording in England and Wales? And how many are not? The NCMD says that there are a number of reasons why 'finders' are not coming forward responsibly with what they have dug up - trying now to shift the blame for falling reporting numbers onto the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

The PAS is a national (UK-wide) organization, so it is worth comparing the situation in Scotland where in the latest Treasure Trove Unit report available online (2019-20) we find that (p. 12) that 1732 Treasure finds were reported by artefact hunters + archaeologists = chance finders, as law requires, all of the finders opted to remain anonymous (report p. 34). Yet Hardy's estimate is that there are 1450 artefact hunters in Scotland (there are other estimates - but they all have the same implications). So in Scotland you can call yourself a "metal detectorist" if all you find is one object a year? By the same token, is a Scottish "angler" a bloke that catches on tiddly perch after a year of sitting on a folding stool silently staring sadly at a body of water? My feeling is that Scottish detectorists are finding more than they report.

So how does the PAS's estimate for detectorists in "the UK" break down to England and Wales? The low (and I would stress that) estimates of Hardy (2017) are as follows: England and Wales 27000, Scotland 1450, Northern Ireland, 225. For the lack of better figures, breaking down the PAS' new estimate of "40000" in the same proportions would give us the following: England and Wales 37600, Scotland 2000, Northern Ireland, 400 (but on what basis would PAS be assessing the number of detectorists in both these latter regions, anyway?).

Taking this one step further, applying (mainly for consistency with earlier estimates) the figures established by us for the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter,* those 37600 artefact hunters would be finding a nominal 1,137,000 recordable artefacts a year. This is a bit of a problem for the supporters of collaboration with artefact hunters. The PAS database barely has one million records after over quarter of a century of "partnership" when the present figures suggest that this should be the annual growth rate at the potential current pace of erosion.

If the PAS were recording the 80000 items a year it had been achieving in the pre-Pandemic past, according to figures derived from the Scheme's own most recent estimate, the Scheme was recording one in 14.2 hoiked artefacts. One in fourteen, 7.1%. Seven percent. That means ninety three percent of artefact hunted objects hoiked out of the archaeological record have disappeared with neither trace nor record, just leaving a blind-dug hole in its place, a massive obliteration of the archaeological record. That in itself is a massive indictment of the system and the archaeologists that are content to shrug shoulders and turn their backs on destruction of the archaeological record on such a scale. Using 2022's figures, 43018 records, gives an even more scandalous result, one that British archaeologists will snootily ignore. According to PAS' own figures, perhaps just one in 26.44 hoiked objects has been getting reported on the PAS database. That's pretty pathetic and very disturbing.

I am 100% sure that PAS and the great and good of British archaeology, along with their partners the metal detectorists on their forums, will dismiss this post as "wrong". They will point out that their "critics don't know" 25% (or whatever) of detectorists are incompetent oafs who never find anything at all - ignoring the fact that these are already accounted for in the HA algorithm's figures. So PAS and all your supporters, WHAT are the alternative figures?

And while on the topic, in the past few years, PAS has insisted on getting involved with increasing numbers of lowbrow TV shows centred around collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record (Britain's Secret Treasures, Henry Coles, the Michaela Strachan junk) on the grounds that they can promote their message. All that has happened is the number of metal detectorists has gone up, and the amount of recording being done has gone down. Time for any normal organization to reassess its policies. Will the PAS? 

* which since they were collected directly and personally, I prefer to the higher rates established by Hardy 2017

Reference cited: 

Portable Antiquities Scheme 2022, ‘Managing/Meeting Finder’s Expectations’,

       Pdf document 7 December 2022 2022 online access: https://www.ncmd.co.uk/wp-
       content/uploads/2022/12/Managing-FLO-Expectations-1.pdf

"Britain's Got Treasure", Episode Seven - The Making of Scotland

In this - thank goodness - penultimate episode 7 of the second series of "Britain’s Secret Treasures" the focus now shifts to Treasure Trove Scotland. This time there were just two celebrity presenters and they mentioned the "metal detector-word" a bit more frequently. (Is this due to the different legal status of the finds up there maybe?) The human interest story starts off "In 2007, landscape gardener David Booth bought himself a metal detector for his birthday. Incredibly, the first time he used it he found four 2000-year-old gold torcs. It was the greatest hoard of gold ever found in Scotland and was valued at £1m" says the ITN blurb. What I heard (I thought, somebody might clarify) is that the award was £462000 and for some reason the finder "got all of it", that's what they said. Then there was a "900-year old" silver Medieval seal matrix the same guy found (of course some dumb-downing had to be done - so viewers were told by Bettany Hughes it was "like a medieval credit card" - um, no....). What was interesting is that it had a Roman intaglio in it which led to some very facile stuff about what it means for Scottish history. Pity they did not mention that (if they got the date right) this happens quite a lot in contemporary Europe.

Things really got going when Michael Portillo presented some mid eighteenth century toy lead soldiers from Fort George near Inverness that allegedly "highlight relationships between Scottish Highlanders and British soldiers". Somehow, the narrativisation takes us to the battle of Culloden and Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Afterwards the British took control of the Highlands and built Fort George. The years following Culloden were difficult for the Highlanders living alongside the British soldiers but over time relationships developed. Experts believe the toys were made by the British soldiers for local Highlander children.

Now, quite how the "experts" came to that conclusion and how much reliance can be placed on the trite story is not explained. Presumably the programe makers do not anticipate having in their audience anyone who might ask such a question. Instead of a presentation of the argument/inference, there is a persuasive costume re-enactment with some "nice British soldiers" making lead soldiers in an open mould just as some very clean little boy apprehensively approaches them and smiles gratefully as the soldier chucks a hot piece of lead at him.

It now emerges this programme is all about Scottish identity. I've pointed out the Kossinnist roots of other things the PAS and its supporters do with archaeological artefacts, here they go the whole hog, Vorgeschichte - eine hervorragend nationale Wissenschaft in all its dubious glory."Topical" reference is made to the upcoming referendum about Scottish independence, breaking the Union. The archaeological artefacts are dragged into the argument, explaining how the United Kingdom is "not such a bad thing", after all - the narrativisation goes - just a few decades after Cullodden, the archaeologists insist their stories show that "the Scots" were quite happy to be in it. So it is that the next find too is roped-into the feelgood narrative:

A second treasure found in the same area is also evidence of improving relationships between the Highlanders’ and British soldiers. Treasure hunter Jack Mackay found a belt buckle from a soldier’s uniform in the fields around the fort last year. The buckle was dated as being from 50 years after Culloden when Britain was at war with France and Napoleon. On the badge is the name of a regiment called the Fort William volunteers made up of local Scottish men. So just half a century after being defeated by the British Army, the Scottish Highlanders were volunteering to fight for them suggesting they had finally accepted a unified Britain.[...] Michael said: “It’s a new world now as I gaze out on a tranquil Scotland where in 2014 the people will vote on whether to maintain the union. These objects illustrate a crucial stage in the long running relationship between England and Scotland and they also demonstrate how old enmity can melt away to be recast as friendly rivalry.”

So can we take it that there is absolutely no reference to these soldiers in any written source? I mean it's only the finding of this shoulder belt plate that tells us about them is it? Somehow that information seems not to have reached the viewer.

There were two 2nd century silver coin hoards and a prehistoric log boat also discussed. Michael Burks comes dangerously close to questioning how it is archaeologists make up their stories, but quietly accepts the bluff as they paddle him off in a replica logboat that they are the "experts", so everything they say must be true.

What delightful pseudo-archaeological nonsense will they be dragging out for the entertainment of the slack-jawed viewers in the final episode?  Will there be any dot-distribution maps?

"The Most Enlightened Antiquities Laws in the World"? The UK "Treasure Trove Law" myth

On collectors’ forums, one constantly finds reference to the British system of dealing with archaeological discoveries by members of the public which is held up as a paragon of government right-thinking on heritage which all other governments should emulate. Indeed one dealer has publicly stated

"the UK has the most enlightened antiquities laws in the world and that if other nations were even half as civilized and as wise, there would be no significant looting problems [...] thus, I do not feel any obligation to help enforce what I perceive as unwise and unenforceable restrictive antiquities export laws of source states, always providing that importation of artifacts into the USA is licit under US law [...]."

So in discussions in collectors’ internet forums, one invariably finds comments referring to these civilized and wise laws. Some random examples are given here to show the sort of thing I mean.

“A solution to existing problems is in place and works. That solution is the British Treasure Trove Law, designed to protect the intellectual value of finds while allowing for human nature.” (Richard Pearlman)

“if more people in the archaeological community responded […] we might actually reach some sort of shared goal like the PAS/Treasure Trove.” (Jim McGarigle)

“we would certainly support […] laws crafted by sovereign governments, modeled on the British Portable Antiquity Scheme / Treasure Trove law.” (Jim McGarigle)

“If laws like that existed as they do now with Britain's Portable Antiquity Scheme/Treasure Trove law, there would be little or no black market because the incentives would be removed” (Jim McGarigle).

“In the United Kingdom, archeologists are working to undo Britain's very fair and very free market approach known as the "Treasure Trove" law”. (Jim McGarigle) [really Mr McGarigle? It was created with their participation]

“Cyprus should investigate successful programs like the British Treasure Trove and Portable Antiquities Scheme to ensure that archaeological artifacts found by members of the general public…” (Dave Welsh)

“The kind of treasure trove law which works and benefits all, such as they have in the U.K., could be a model for the U.S. both in the realm of antiquities ...” (Dave Welsh)

“I completely support an enlightened, even-handed approach to the issue such as the UK's Treasure Trove laws”. (Phil Davis)

“England's treasure trove law is the best answer to balancing the needs of archeologists and collectors. Why? Because it is fair!” (John Vander Weit)

“I live in the United States. I could support a legal framework that punished violators of Britain's reasonable 'Treasure Trove' laws. I cannot respect a legal framework that required me to follow the laws of, for example, Afganistan." (Ed Snible)


There is a pattern here, most of the speakers are US coin collectors or dealers. Secondly, they all refer to a law they call “treasure Trove”, though ascribe it variously to Britain, the United Kingdom or England (forgetting Wales), interestingly none of them mention Scotland (see below). Thirdly they all seem agreed that for some reason this “Treasure Trove” law is very “fair” and it should be adopted as a pattern by all other countries in forming new antiquity protection laws, when collectors and dealers would be willing to respect them.

Here however there seems to be some confusion. Treasure Trove is the name of a law which applied to the British Isles as a whole since well before American Independence. In England and Wales it was replaced (1996) by the Treasure Act [which was revised six years later (The Treasure (Designation) Order 2002) to include all prehistoric base metal objects from the same find]. The Treasure Act applies to England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The establishment of the Portable Antiquities Scheme of England and Wales is nothing to do with this legislation, though it currently administers part of the associated process.
Apart from the Treasure Act, there are restrictions in England and Wales concerning where one can legally search for and dig up antiquities, but basically in many places thousands of archaeological sites are open to exploitation in this manner as long as the searcher has the permission of the landowner and there is no legal requirement to obtain any kind of additional permit, or to report what was found.

In Northern Ireland however, the 1996 Treasure Act(as modified in 2002) is in force, but alongside the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 which makes it a statutory duty for finders within 14 days to report all archaeological objects, whatever their material composition, to the Department of the Environment, the Ulster Museum or the police. The Order prohibits any archaeological excavation (and any intrusive search for archaeological objects) without a licence from the Department of the Environment. The only archaeological finds that in Northern Ireland can be legally sold and acquired are those with documentation demonstrating they have been reported and disclaimed.

Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom to actually have a law called Treasure Trove which was not altered by the 1996 Treasure Act. I hardly think though that this is the law to which the above authors are referring, since Scottish Treasure Trove law determines that all newly discovered archaeological objects belong to the Crown under the legal principle of bona vacantia. No-one else, finder or landowner, has the rights to ownerless ancient objects found in the ground in Scotland, whether they are from an archaeological site or not. This means that all finds, whether they are precious metal or not and regardless of whether they were hidden or lost, must be reported to the authorities. Some finds will be claimed under Treasure Trove and will therefore be allocated to public collections (museums) in Scotland to be enjoyed by all, and when this happens the finder receives a discretionary reward. If finds are disclaimed they are returned to the finder, only disclaimed finds can be legally sold and acquired It is not possible to legally collect archaeological finds in Scotland without first reporting them to the Crown.

(There are of course other laws affecting finds and where one can legally dig them up and what one can legally do with them in different parts of the UK, but it is not my purpose here to outline all of them).

Basically therefore when the chorus of US collectors refer to “British Treasure Trove law”, it would seem that they are in fact referring to the situation in just part of the British Isles, to that covered by the post-1996 English and Welsh Treasure Act, which basically means that there is no statutory requirement to report any archaeological finds dug up, whether from an archaeological site or not, unless it falls into a narrowly-defined range of objects defined primarily on the grounds of whether they are of gold or silver. The vast majority of collectables on the market today do not fall under this legal definition, which is why it may be suspected that US collectors anxious to get their hands on a multitude of undocumented antiquities are so keen to have such a system installed in all source countries.

Collectors who say all foreign governments "should" introduce a system of financial compensation for people handing finds in to be added to national collections seem to be missing three things. First of course these items do not come on the market (though those not covered by the law do). Secondly many states who regard antirquities as state property actually already reward finders, and certainly to a degree greater than one would believe looking at pro-collecting propaganda. Thirdly fully awarding the finder the market value for digging up something that in fact in some cases would be better not sought out and dug out is counterproductive. It retrieves shiny objects, but does it lead to better retrieval of information about their context of deposition? In any case, how do these collectors suggest cash-strapped Third World states finance meeting the prices that would be offered for these items on the open market in the west instead of spending the money on education and hospitals? Three guesses..... Personally I wonder by what right these US collectors assume to set themselves up above the rights of sovereign states to determine what is their cultural heritage and how they wish it to be treated?

US portable antiquity collectors label the antiquities protection laws of many of the source countries as "restrictive laws". They do so however in terms which make it clear that both Scottish and Northern Irish law falls within the scope of such a definition. Such a definition is obviously not precise enough to differentiate good laws ("the most enlightened antiquities laws in the world") from what these collectors self-determine as "unwise and unenforceable restrictive antiquities export laws of source states" which they do not feel obliged to respect. Do they imagine the UK has no export laws concerning the archaeological heritage?


Picture: Medieval brooch from Środa Śląska hoard (Silesia, Poland)

Bovine muscular Outreach to Night Detectorists

“That’s not in any of the field guides.” 

Archaeologist from Historic Scotland

Where there is a will, there is a way. When metal detectorist Derek McLennan, 47 found a hoard of more than 100 objects including a sealed bronze pot, gold, silver ingots, decorative brooches and Viking arm rings, and archaeologists decided not to hoik it out in a matter of hours like some, they were faced with the usual dilemma. Once digging at the site had already started, people could come in the night with metal detectors and night-vision equipment and steal the lot for their own collections. In this case, as "an insider at Historic Scotland said" “Usually we’d contact the police to give them notice of where the site is and others do the same [...] The best way to deal with it is to keep the site a secret for as long as possible". Or a security firm could be hired to do the job. In this case (and metal detectorists and FLOs who suggest guarding a site is never an option should note) help was at hand in the form of a massive half a tonne bull which staff at Historic Scotland persuaded a local farmer to place in the same field where the haul of Viking treasure was discovered (Bob Malcolm, 'Bull plays security guard for archaeological hoard', The Scotsman, 26 December 2014). "Historic Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Treasure Trove Unit were all contacted and all declined to comment".

Numismatists Probably will Never get it...

Rare Scottish coin found in Cumbria

It is quite clear that the majority of coin fondlers are not really all that interested in either findspot or the legal situation concerning the surfacing of another fine specimen to ogle. Here's some typical numismo-jubilation about a coin in the PAS database:

Carl Savage ‏@Carlisle_Carl 22 godz. 22 godziny temu
This very rare Scottish James V 1/3 groat (type IV) has just been discovered in Cumbria.

("To be known as: Cockermouth") A justifiable question, about the so-called Cockermouth coin considering legal situation in the country of origin of such coins:

Paul Barford ‏@PortantIssues 14 godz.14 godzin temu
@Carlisle_Carl @Archaeology_UoS "very rare" in Scotland, or just in Cumbria? Who saw it come out of the ground in England?

numismatically-evasive answer:

Carl Savage @Carlisle_Carl 4.10
@PortantIssues @Archaeology_UoS Its very rare in both Scotland and England. The Cumbrian find is the first of its kind recorded on the PAS

So, all the more reason to verify the findspot. Justifiable question on data hygiene repeated

Paul Barford ‏@PortantIssues @Carlisle_Carl @Archaeology_UoS  So I ask again, how was reported findspot verified before information published on said PAS ''database"?

but numismo-evaded again

Carl Savage ‏@Carlisle_Carl 20 min20 minut temu
@PortantIssues @Archaeology_UoS The find was via a metal detector so the detectorist would have dug it out the ground

Justifiable question on data hygiene repeated

Paul Barford ‏@PortantIssues 15 min temu @Carlisle_Carl @Archaeology_UoS So I ask _again_, how was reported findspot verified before information published on said PAS ''database"?

Silence....

What is the point of a 'database' which includes unverified data reported by third parties, not primarily engaged in gathering data - but things to collect, who come along to the FLO with just a selection they have made? These are not 'data', This is ártefactual 'show and tell.

UPDATE 5th October 2016
Anyone who considers the title of the text unduly pessimistic (or dismissive) might like to look at the numismatist's next tweet which completely illustrates the point I was making....

Carl Savage @Carlisle_Carl 5.10 @PortantIssues @Archaeology_UoS The find was verified by the national finds adviser for the PAS and my own records of coins finds

I think there is some confusion as to what we mean by verification, the blinkered artefact-centred view seems to see the word as concerning the identity of the object (the accuracy of its label) or perhaps authenticity.  To make it clear, under the legislation of Scotland, any artefact-hunter-collector submitting a 'very rare' coin to the Treasure Trove process found in the soil of Scotland runs a very real risk of losing it to the national collections (even if it is in that condition). They'll get the cash ransom of course, but will not be able to join the rare find to their own private personal stash of antiquities. If however the coin is found south of a line drawn on a map, a different regime applies and the finder-collector can hang onto his trophy. As happened here, 'Subsequent action after recording: Returned to finder'.  The temptation is obvious, and obviously any attempt to compile reliable 'data' using unverified third-party reports made in the course of a hobby-collecting activity needs to adopt stringent measures to counteract any attempts to fraudulently report findspots - especially in the case of artefacts of foreign origin allegedly found in England.

To be clear, I am not saying this coin was fraudulently-reported. I am asking about the extent of the due diligence of the compilers of the PAS record.  It is a public-funded enterprise and PAS employees and their helpers owe the paying public the best service, not some fob-off nonsense. The question of 'laundering finds by PAS' is not a new one. This blog is full of examples. The Oxford Nighthawking report includes measures to counter it in  its recommendations.  Made in 2009. When were they put into practice by the PAS? (rhetorical question - Bloomsbury is the stoniest ground). The discovery of a 'very rare' Scottish coin type in England is a case which should have set alarm bells ringing in the PAS office. My question concerns whether it did. Carlisle Carl's replies indicate very strongly that neither he nor Dot Boughton, the responsible FLO who was mixed up in the so-called Crosby Garrett Helmet controversy up there took this public duty all that seriously. "The find was verified by the national finds adviser for the PAS and my own records of coins finds" means that the question of the verification of the veracity of the reported findspot was not addressed properly. Like so many other finds reported to, and given legitimacy by, the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

As Farmer Silas Brown has been pointing out all this time, finders can only prove title by a release document issued by the landowner. When are the PAS going to insist on seeing the documentation of legal title of the objects they handle, and sometimes store in their offices?