Ooo, those Tekkies

Over on Twitter when I questioned a (former) FLO's praise of a recent fluff newspaper article as a 'balanced' account of the issues surrounding collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record, I got into a discussion with a tekkie (Warren Astley, Detectorist, History, Archaeology (sic), Kitchen Fitter, Ex, Royal Artillary (sic); Coalville, Leicester, England) who said too that the article was 'fantastic' [emoticon]

Warren Astley@warren_astley·7 wrz
More finds are made each year through Metal Detectorist than conventional Archeology and its recorded be it from Clubs to individuals we all have a duty to protect our heritage and nurture new generation that are passionate about our past, there are certain individuals that dont.

My response to that (the FLO ducked out and the PAS copied in declined to engage) was to point out that this

"new generation that are passionate about our past" will not thank the present "me-me-me" generation with its tens of thousands of scattered ephemeral personal artefact collections by then dispersed) and hundreds of thousands trashed sites in the UK alone. They simply will not.

and then in response to the 'mine's bigger than yours' penis-comparing contest Mr Astley wanted to use as his argument, I happened to have written a blog post that related to what he had said:

Many thousand MORE artefacts are dug up during collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record in Britain than are currently being, or ever will be, recorded, this is a net loss of knowledge and utter scandal/ Quite a lot that do not, in fact it seems its the huge majority Worrying Statistics the PAS-supporters Will Not Share With You about EBay, 99.8% of artefacts sold by British artefact hunters and dealers are not reported to the PAS /So, Where is this"balance", when the PAS itself cannot bring itself to publicly and loudly air the massive shortfall between the fine words they themselves use of the artefact hunting community as a whole (a"responsible majority") and actual practice? It's public-funded nonsense. 

I also added that the mere digging of "finds"/objects out of an archaeological site by artefact hunting does not generate information. I asked "which produces a greater understanding of the past in all its aspects, please tell us. How would one understand the"finds" without archaeology? What is the PAS if not archaeology?". There was no answer to that relevant question. Instead we got this:

Warren Astley@warren_astley do @PortantIssues @exleicflo i@findsorguk 7 wrz
Most detectorist who have a passion for the hobby are also pretty clued up with regards to artifacts and there use time lines and also conservation , they also record there location and work closely with most FLO,s to protect our history.

Clued up? This one cannot distinguish "their" from "there" or make a plural of FLO. Anyway in the context of what I had said, I asked for clarification of  "there used time lines" and how "history" is  "protected"

when archaeological sites are dismantled to get (only) the collectables out and into your pockets? That's like the Buddha heads at Angkor?

Because of course that is excactly what it is. I then added the point just to expand on the 'greater understanding of the past in all its aspects' through achaeology and its methodology (the PAS and FLO still being absent):

Paul Barford@PortantIssues·7 wrz  do @warren_astley @exleicflo i @findsorguk
An actual archaeologist would in the same circumstances not only already be as 'clued up' on all these aspects but in particular record a good deal more than the bare 'location' of selected removed objects to protect ALL the information of which its location is just one small part.

That seems pretty clear to me (except I am still unclear what he meant by "there used time lines" and how you can protect something by trashing it with a spade). But before Mr Astley could respond, another tekkie (new to Twitter - he's a "will of the people, I'll never vote again" bloke apparently from N. Wales) joins in:

richard wills@rickwills40·18 min
Like to know how you do that on a field that's been ploughed . Most modern fields are ploughed , even pasture ,if you know your farming . Most finds are in danger of destruction and most definitely not in their original position .

Now, actually I do 'know my farming', and pedology/soil profiles. Many areas of land in western Europe fenced into fields or not, and certainly in North Wales in fact have not been ploughed in modern times, much of North Wales because the soil is crap and the slopes too steep - but they are detected anyway.

As for recording a good deal more about a pattern of archaeological evidence across the surface of a ploughed field that goes beyond just an x-marks-the-spot note of where the most collectable objects came from (which is, as I said, just a part of the whole pattern), I really do not know where the FLO is now. This is FLO work. That's what they are paid to do, explain to members of the public 'to raise awareness among the public of the educational value of archaeological finds in their context', no matter if that's a well, or a ploughed field. Or is that just words?

How do we do it in a ploughed field? Well, there's a lot of literature out there about fieldwalking techniques, gridding, sampling procedures nd so on. Lots of it. The PAS website of course does not link to any of it (even though I did spend a long time a number of years ago creating a bibliography of them for their forum - now gone). But there is a handy guide (as far as I can see not linked either on the PAS website - see a pattern here?) Our Portable Past, Guidance for Good Practice (revised version, published 20 February 2018).

Creating a Good Impression: PAS Statistics are not what they seem (1)

What was the PAS database set up to do?  Wikipedia has this to say:

In March 1996, during the run-up to the passing of the new Treasure Act, what was then the Department of National Heritage (DNH) (now the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)) published Portable Antiquities. A discussion document. The aim of this document was to complement the impending Treasure Act, address the issue of non-treasure archaeological finds and to propose solutions for dealing with these. The general response to the DNH’s proposals was that the recording of all archaeological finds was important and that a consistent voluntary scheme to record finds should be established. As a result, in December 1996, the DNH announced that funding would be provided for two years for a programme of six pilot schemes, starting in September 1997.

The rest is history, even though '1984'-like, that history is altered by selective removal of information from the Internet. Paper however remains. Here's Roger Bland in 2008:

The document set out proposals for a voluntary scheme for the reporting of finds that fall outside the scope of the 1996 Treasure Act and sought views. All those who responded agreed that the recording of all archaeological finds was important and that there was a need to improve the current arrangements, and they stressed that this could not be done without additional resources. For the first time there was a consensus among both archaeologists and detector users that a voluntary scheme offered the best way forward [...] The principal aim of the Scheme is to arrest the large level of archaeological information lost every year by actively recording this material on a systematic basis for public benefit [...]  we will all be the losers if we fail to record their finds. 

But of course the record of Treasure finds is assured by law. Then there is this from Margaret Hodge Minister of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) (Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism) 22 January 2008,

I cannot conclude a speech on the treasure system without also paying tribute to the excellent role that is played by the PAS. This scheme runs parallel to the treasure system and provides a network, as hon. Members have suggested, through which non-treasure material discovered by amateur archaeologists and other enthusiasts can be identified and recorded. The finder gets to find out more about her or his discovery; a bank of information is built up for the benefit of everyone through the publicly accessible database, and the finds can be displayed and interpreted for the benefit of the public [...] That is a really wonderful thing and represents a marvellous step forward in the democratisation of the study of our past.

and not just grabby artefact hunters and collectors. Cambridge seems not to have heard by 2014 that you are no expected to bowdlerise the account and pretend the Scheme was always there not to be a specific kind of record, but just to be a public showcase of everything they can get their hands on:

The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) is a national initiative funded by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and host organisations. The scheme is based at the British Museum and was set up to work with - and extended - the 1996 Treasure Act by recording non-treasure finds made by members of the public.

So, despite what is happening now, the PAS was set up to deal only with non-Treasure finds made by members of the public, as the Treasure items by law are dealt with (and reported) under a different system. But the problem was that the 'success rate' was not big enough to impress. So, quietly, and without any public debate the PAS decided to quietly include Treasure items on the PAS database, which duplicates their report elsewhere under the Treasure Act (and apart from anything else uses up resources set aside for the PAS). This is just a cynical manner of adjusting' the statistics to make it look as if the PAS is having more success getting 'voluntary' reporting from artefact hunters.

Ask them how much and you'll find out that they have been contacted by "14000 metal detector users and others" (Bland, Lewis et al 2017, p. 112). Note that "and others" and then take into account that this was over a 20-year period (and in those statistics, compiled perhaps from annual reports, is the same detectorist coming to the Scheme once a year for three years and met once at a rally counted once, or four times?)

To be continued: Creating a Good Impression: PAS Statistics are not what they seem (2)

Reference:
Roger Bland, Michael Lewis, Daniel Pett, Ian Richardson, Katherine Robbins and Rob Webley 2017, ‘The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales’, pp. 107-121 [in:] Gabriel Moshenska (ed.) Key Concepts in Public Archaeology, London (UCL) DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt1vxm8r7.12

Creating a Good Impression: PAS Statistics are not what they seem (2)

Continued from  Creating a Good Impression: PAS Statistics are not what they seem (1)

What happens to PAS statistics concerning the success of voluntary recording if we remove the records not made as a result of voluntary recording by artefact hunters? There are at least three groups of these extraneous data which are included alongside the figures (V) for voluntary reporting by artefact hunters:

A) chance finds made by members of the public who are not engaged in collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record (my mum with a samian sherd from her rose garden, Bob the Builder who finds a Roman coin in upcast of a storm water drain trench on a building site). There is in fact no easy way to separate  these finds out from the rest except manually, as the current form of the advanced search of the database does not filter 'discovery method'.

B) Material coming from two archaeologist-compiled existing databases that contain information that does not all come from public finds. In late March 2010, the  Celtic Coin Index was amalgamated with the PAS database (and there is no filter in 'advanced search' to exclude them from the general records). The CCI database added some 37925 records to the PAS database, boosting overnight the number of Celtic coins recorded there from a few thousand to nearly 40000.

The Iron Age and Roman Coins of Wales Database was a one-year research project (2003-04) of the Cardiff School of History and Archaeology run by Dr Peter Guest (and Research Assistant Nick Wells). It gathered onto a database information on published and unpublished Welsh finds of Iron Age and Roman coins (excavated assemblages, hoards, casual single finds and indeterminate groups of coins, among them those recovered by metal detector or field walking and reported through the PAS). In the end, details of 52,838 coins (the vast majority dating to the Roman period) from 1,172 find spots were collected. The information was published as a detailed corpus. In March 2010, the dataset of this project was amalgamated with the Portable Antiquities Scheme database ‘significantly increasing the number of coins available for study’ and again boosting PAS record numbers. It is unknown here too whether there had been significant overlap between these two databases. Again there is no filter to remove these results from the general statistics.

To summarise, in 2010 the PAS database was stealthily increased by 39097 records of 90763 objects by adding these two databases - duplicating information available at the time elsewhere.

C) Treasure finds, reported by law.  Fortunately the 'advanced search' does contain the possibility of filtering out Treasure finds included in the PAS database. There is a button near the top of the search terms form. Pressing it gives some pretty surprising results. It turns out that there are nearly a quarter of a million additional finds on the database from this source (234,487 objects in 13599 records). There are 980 multiple-object hoards represented (one with 52504 coins in it) You can sort the results by the time they were added to the record. While a few Treasure items had been incidentally added to the database from June 1998, it seems there was a change in policy and a concerted effort to add them from August/September 2007. (Statistical analysis of the database for Saturday 1st August 1998 until Wednesday 1st August 2007 Total objects recorded: 285810 Total records: 187454).

To summarise, from August 2007 to now the PAS database has been openly increased by 13599 records of 234487 objects by adding treasure finds - duplicating information available at the time elsewhere in the Treasure reports prepared according to the Treasure Act art. 12.

So let's fix it for the PAS. Their blurb today proudly reads "1,438,864 objects within 923,127 records". But that result is A+B+C+V. if we want to know V, we have to extract B and C (but can't do much about A). The result is:

"([1,438,864 - 325,250] objects within [923,127 - 52,696] records") =

1,113,614 objects within 670,431 records.

How does that 'V' look in the twenty-year perspective and knowing that there are probably 27000 tekkies out there? Not very impressive. Those revised figures presented on a twenty-year scale come out at 43522 records annually, or 55681 objects. Far from the massive success claimed. It's actually less than two objects each (and remember, these figures are A+B).

British Archaeological Jobsworthism Needs Outing

UK archaeological-
collecting partnership

More marginalising concerns by the establishment about the archaeological consequences of the current UK status quo on Collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record (aka looting), heritage Action:

So we remain convinced that a 2009 excavation measuring 10 x 14 yards, a 2010 follow up excavation comprising 110 yards of trenches and pits and a 2012 survey using patently inadequate metal detectors will NOT have revealed all that is there. It’s not good enough, as better equipped nighthawks have known very well ever since. We shall resist suggestions we’re hysterical or ill-informed.

HA: "The Staffordshire Hoard: no, we won’t desist or be dismissed as ill-informed…." 08/09/2019
British archaeological jobsworthism  needs outing... why aren't British archaeologists doing that in the case of artefact-hunting related issues? (Rhetorical question).

Some Awkward Statistics the PAS-supporters Will Not Share With You

As we all know, PAS pretends to be monitoring eBay for Treasure items (here too as 'public archaeology'), but they're not really making public comments about anything they have found there, have you noticed? This is part of something that I am (still) working on that has to be at the foreign publishers early next week. Still a draft:

"For the purpose of this paper, the UK portal of eBay (https://www.ebay.co.uk/) was examined by the present writer 18th August 2019. It was found that on that day in the section labelled ‘British antiquities’ on sale by dealers based in the UK only, there were 13825 antiquities (4563 small objects and 9262 coins - 20 Celtic, 5414 Roman and 3828 ‘hammered’ coins -Anglo-Saxon to Tudor). Some were being sold in short-term ‘snap’ auctions, while others would be displayed for 30 days or until they were sold. The number of sellers involved cannot easily be precisely established, but may be estimated as upward of 1200 at the time of the investigation, but was probably more. Fay (2013, 201-2) found that 52% of the artefacts and 74% of the coins on the portal when she monitored it were actually sold during the period they were on offer. The ones that were not sold are often relisted and many eventually find a buyer.
The material offered for sale in 2008 and 2019 consisted mainly of coins and small objects but in terms of their typology(Fay 2013 pp 202-3, 204-5, table 9) the selection on sale was not representative of typical excavated archaeological assemblages. In 2008, over 38% of the assemblage was made up of ancient jewellery, mainly brooches and rings, a further 23% can be described as domestic and personal objects (buckles and clothes fasteners are common), 22% as weapons or tools (mainly axes and arrowheads). The largest percentage was made up of small bronze items 32%, with flint and stone objects comprising 16% and pottery only 12% (and iron 4%).
Leaving aside the coins, the small objects on offer on eBay in August 2019 ranged in sale price (‘buy now’ prices only were analysed) between GBP5 and several over GBP1000. Of these, 70% of the objects were on sale for 5-40 GBP a further 18% were valued in the middle range of 40-110, while the remaining 12% were offered for higher prices. [aside: I regret now that I did not do the same for hammered coins as well]
Most of these artefacts were most probably authentic archaeological finds. It seems that where one can tell, in the low price range at least 3-4% have the appearance of foreign artefacts (with odd typology or patina) being offered as British finds, and a small percentage (about 1%?) being fakes. In the middle price range,  the number of object that may be strongly suspected as being foreign finds ‘laundered’ as British rises to at least 20% (though the real figure may be higher) – these figures mainly refer to the offerings of the larger dealers. There may be some fakes here too. Most of the more obvious fake antiquities were in the higher value end of the range (particularly above 100 GBP, with some on offer for considerably more).
Very few of the descriptions of the objects being sold contain even sketchy provenances and collecting histories – and few sellers indicate that any such information is available at all. None contain the information that there is a document from the owner of the property where the object was found assigning title. Particularly shocking is that only a few sellers (in fact eleven) give the information that the objects they are selling have been recorded by archaeologists (the PAS see below), this means that only 22 items out of the total of 4563 small objects have been recorded (0.48%). Among the coins and tokens, it is even worse, only five (0.05%) have been recorded (none Roman, one Celtic, the rest medieval and later).
The considerable number of artefacts being offered through venues like eBay are of course are those that were collected in the field during artefact hunting but superfluous to the collecting needs of those that found them. The numbers on open sale hint at the size of the accumulations of decontextualised archaeological material making up unknown numbers of scattered and ephemeral personal collections of archaeological artefacts in the UK. Even if not every one of these items is sold immediately, or is not in fact an authentic artefact (and perhaps not all items marketed as British finds in reality come from British soil), this shows the scale of the market involved, and the damage being done to archaeological sites all over the country by collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record".

Look at that, for all the fluffy talk about a "majority" of "responsible" artefact hunters out there and a "minority' of irresponsible ones....  only eleven sellers in a thousand give the information that the objects they are selling have been recorded by the PAS - 0.48% of the artefacts and 0.05% of the coins. The overall statistic is that of these groups of British-found artefacts being sold to collectors, is that 0.195% are recorded, that means 99.80% are going onto the market totally unreported. That's 99.80%, don't anyone try to tell me that artefact hunting with metal detectors is producing archaeological knowledge.

And why are those figures "awkward"? PAS?

Looking Dodgy: Aberrant Dead Sea Scroll Now Known to Have Another Singularity

The Dead Sea scrolls 'have given up fresh secrets, with researchers saying they have identified a previously unknown technique used to prepare one of the most remarkable scrolls of the collection' (Nicola Davis, 'Dead Sea scrolls study raises new questions over texts' origins' Guardian Fri 6 Sep 2019) Analysis shows that an alum sizing layer under the writing on the Temple Scroll differ from the methods used to prepare the other Qumran scrolls

The results suggest the writing surface is largely composed of sulfate salts, including glauberite, gypsum and thenardite – minerals that dissolve in water and are left behind when the water evaporates. However, the researchers say these salts are not typical for the Dead Sea region, raising questions of where exactly they came from.

It also raises the question of whether that scroll really was found (as the Bedouin artefact hunters who sold them to a local dealer in or about 1956 said) in the Qumran caves at all. It is not a properly grounded artefact.

‘Forging Antiquity: Authenticity, Forgery & Fake Papyri’

Part of the 'Forging Antiquity' Project

‘Forging Antiquity: Authenticity, Forgery and Fake Papyri’ 19 September 2019, Macquarie University Sydney, Australia

Every interpretation of the past involves some creative imposition and, yet, folk understandings of the historian’s task admit no room for this rich dynamic between known and unknown, us and them. The idea that the past is made and made through our engagement with it seems to threaten the integrity of our sense of where we come from and who we are. The stakes are even higher when it comes to antiquity understood as material remains, as object of art or inquiry. Particular ire is reserved for those who compromise the guarantee of truth and immediacy offered by the physical reality of the material by adjustment, appropriation, or downright fabrication. Looted or forged artefacts packaged up with false declarations of authenticity and fictional accounts of provenance speak to the criminal underbelly of our engagement with the ancient world. These objects exploit the vanity of our confidence in scientific technique and expertise. Deviant artefacts upset traditional assumptions about the protection afforded the past by the academy. They open up the past to contributions made by marginalised groups and to creative interventions which demonstrate how porous, how live, and how important the past is today. From Thucydides to the New Testament, Zoroaster to hieroglyphs, from Egypt to e-Bay, this showcase will highlight research undertaken as part of the Australian Research Council-funded Project ‘Forging Antiquity: Authenticity, forgery, and fake papyri’, featuring presentations from Macquarie staff and students, and our overseas partners.

Speakers and paper titles

(all speakers from Macquarie University except where noted)

Richard Bott, ‘Assumed Authenticity: Expertise, Authentication, and the Sheikh Ibada Fakes’

Malcolm Choat, ‘Constantine Simonides and his New Testament Papyri’

Lauren Dundler, ‘#antiquitiesdealers – The Construction of Dealer Persona in the Internet Antiquities Market’

Isabelle Marthot-Santaniello (University of Basel), ‘The challenges of Writer Identification on papyrus’

Vanessa Mawby, George Topalidis, and Penny Blake, ‘Theopompus (of Chios?) and his Hieroglyphs: Constantine Simonides and 19th century Egyptology’

Rachel Yuen-Collingridge, ‘Forgery as an act of creative decolonisation: Constantine Simonides between Thucydides and Zoroaster’

'Forging Antiquity: Authenticity, forgery and fake papyri' is an Australian Research Council Discovery Project. Here's their blurb:

To forge is creative, but forgery now means creating a fake. ‘Forging Antiquity’ explores this ambiguous dichotomy by situating an examination of forged papyri within an historical analysis of the development of forgery, authentication techniques, and public debates over forgeries from the 19th century to the present day. By contextualising technical study of fakes within analysis of strategies of authenticating ancient papyri, traditional and emerging de-authentication practices, and the cultural context of forgery, its outcomes will provide a tool for future assessments of authenticity, illuminate the parallel development of the professional personae and skills of forgers and authenticators, and contribute to debate on who has the authority to pronounce on the past. The project is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery project grant from 2017–2019, and is a collaboration between Macquarie University and the University of Heidelberg.

There is a small gallery of fake papyri, illustrating the sort of material there is today on the market eagerly bought by collectors.