There has been much excitement on the metal detecting forums about a scattered hoard of gold staters found on Sunday 7th Sept 2008 during a metal detecting rally run by the Northern England Weekend Searchers at Stixwould and Woodhall East Lindsey. The main point of interest here is however the discrepancy between the numbers of coins believed to have been found, and the number reported. Worrying reports on the forums suggest that a greater number of coins was recovered than were subsequently reported. The details and general attitudes amongst "metal detectorists" towards the actions of fellow artefact hunters can be judged from the thread on the topic on the Detectorist.co.uk forum. G. Clooney reported that he had heard that the total number of finds was 21 or 22 found by various people, but that it was being said that some people had failed to report them. Another writer confirmed this, saying he had heard "rumours" that a total of eighteen to twenty gold coins had been found, but in discussions with the archaeologist(s) present during the rally, he had learnt that only eight had been reported during the rally and he had no knowledge of any that might have been reported subsequently. A forum member calling himself Muddy Mick reported that subsequent to the rally he was hearing reports from various people about the number of coins found, one person he spoke to claimed to have found "six", another "two" and so on, and he too poses the question how many coins were found that were not reported. He says that accounts suggest that there was a scene of pandemonium that when news got around that gold had been found, there was what he described as a "free for all" and that there was such a concentration of rally participants randomly searching one small area that people could hardly move. His attitude was that it was unfair on the finders (sic). Apparently "detectorists" have been assured that if a hoard were to be found on any of these rallies, that the area would be taped off to enable the original finders to procede to get all the finds out themselves. On another forum (the Minelabs Owners forum) a person who had attended the rally said that when he had asked at the site reception what had been found, he was told that sixteen coins (he called them "staters"), five of gold had already come up, together with a bronze sword and numerous hammered coins. But then another person added “Make that more like 30 odd gold staters from what I hear. Explorer II really beat them out of the ground- some as deep as 14 inches. Quite amazing.” (this latter point of course is interesting, as this must be at about the base of the ploughsoil, and many detectorists claim that their machines have shallow penetration of "about six inches").It is worth noting that even if the reports of numbers of coins found but not reported are exagerration, not a single person on any of these three forums doubts that fellow metal detectorists would find treasure items and illegally keep them and not report them.
So how many were reported then? The gold finds (being treasure do not appear on the PAS database) but the FLO in attendance at the rally says (pers. Comm. 7/10/08) “At the rally we recorded six gold staters and one silver unit”
What happened next can be determined from a post by the rally organizer Norman Smith on UKDetectornet (original punctuation and spelling):
The message continues, the writer then gives the three reasons the excavation took place to pre-empt any future illegal metal detecting (to protect the archaeological information from being lost, to protect the farmer’s interests, making trespassing less worthwhile by removing the valuable finds, and to increase the overall value of the finds made during the rally – with an eye to the reward).*WITHIN DAYS THE FARMER HAD IN EXCESS OF 50 FONE CALLS AND PERSONAL VISITS FROM PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM GOLD FEVER OFFERING TO DIG OFF THE TOPSOIL AND SHARE THE FINDS WITH THE FARMER. APART FROM THE MORALISTIC SIDE OF THIS THE FARMER WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CARRY OUT SUCH AN ACTION UNDER THE CONSTRAINTS PLACED UPON HIM BY THE COUNTRYSIDE STEWARDSHIP SCHEME, IN RELATION TO THE DISTURBANCE OF THE NATURAL "EARTH" UNDERNEATH THE TOPSOIL, WHICH IS THE
REASON IT WAS NOT DONE DURING THE RALLY. MORE DISTURBINGLY 3 INCIDENTS OCCURED IN THE DAYS LEADING UP TO THE EXCAVATION WHICH CAUSED SOME ALARM. 1. THE FARMER TURNED DOWN A PERSON REQUESTING PERMISSION TO DETECT THE SITE AND WAS PHYSICALLY THREATENED. 2. A CREW FROM ROTHERHAM VISITED THE FARMER AND WHEN TURNED DOWN OPENLY STATED THEY WOULD RETURN AND NIGHTHAWK THE SITE 3. TWO PEOPLE CARRYING DETECTORS WERE SEEN TO PARK A VEHICLE IN WOODHALL SPA AND WALK ACROSS FIELDS WITH DETECTORS AFTER THE HOURS OF DARKNESS. THE REG NO WAS TAKEN AND THE MATTER REPORTED. IT WAS KNOWN THEY WERE TO ATTEND A NEARBY RALLY THAT WEEKEND. SEVERAL PARTIES WERE MADE AWARE AND 12 HOURS BEFORE THE NEARBY RALLY WAS DUE TO START I ENGAGED THE LOCAL ARCHAEOLOGIST, CONTACTED 2 OF THE ORIGINAL FINDERS, ONE OF THE ORGANISING TEAM AND THE LANDOWNER AND THE EXCAVATION TOOK PLACE
With this in mind, it is worth pointing out that within two weeks of the rally (and thus within the 14 days required by law), two further staters were handed in to different FLOs (inf from Adam Daubney). The finders would have known during the rally that the gold coins coming up from this area would be treated as Treasure and thus to remove them is illegal. They did so, and presumably had second thoughts. How many finders did not? After all, if nobody saw them pocket the find during the rally, the finder can say they found them singly in another field miles away from where they were actually found, and therefore to all intents and purposes a legal non-Treasure find. So why would they now report them? Perhaps there is a good reason why they could not take them to the FLO on site (news of a sudden emergency at home for example) and decided to do so afterwards to stay on the right side of the law. It may have been pure altruism, or it may not. Perhaps these coins in their own right were not particularly valuable, but splitting the proceeds of the Treasure process eight ways instead of six may well become lucrative after the new staters were found (see Code of Practice of the Treasure Act, point 78).
A fortnight later "metal detectorists" were again at the site. The controlled investigation was carried out on Saturday 20th September, 2008 under the supervision of Adam Daubney of Lincoln Museum and attended by Norman Smith (Rally Organiser) and a few metal detectorists. Unfortunately no-one had used a GPS to record the initial finds, and despite a thorough search no new coins were found. The landowner then reploughed the area around the hoard concentration which brought new finds into range of the tools available on site, and renewed searching with metal detectors followed by GPS plotting of the six gold staters and one silver unit could take place. Adam Daubney tells me
“all coins were within the plough soil, and the plot of(I am grateful to Adam for sharing this information with me). These further finds brings the total number of coins from the hoard to 14 gold staters and 2 silver units. What though had the hoard originally contained, and what was taken from the fields between the 7th and 20th of September?
the coins show that although there was a concentration, they formed a neat 'plough-line' across circa 40m. This line complimented the plough regime for the field”.
What I think is interesting in all the discussion on the metal detecting forums was any explicit discussion of the fact that allegations were being made concerning illegal activity taking place during the rally. Not a mention was made of gathering the evidence members had and taking it to the authorities so these allegations could be properly investigated and any guilty parties brought to justice. Why not?
With reference to another post here, when I checked a few days ago, of the 169 finds which had been entered on the PAS database from the Lincolnshire area since September 1st, 145 were from the Stixwould rally, indicating how “important” attendance at such events is for boosting the numbers of finds recorded in the PAS database. On the other hand it also shows how time-consuming it is dealing with them (preventing other outreach) and also it is doubtful whether a concentration of finds from one area surrounded by a blank area which was not searched in the rally really adds much to our knowledge of the region’s archaeology. There really is a whole bunch of problems which surround metal detecting rallies which are hardly being touched on in the British archaeological scramble to befriend artefact hunters and collectors.
Photo: Our heritage up for grabs (fair use download from a web-resource of a group that DOES care about the heritage and unlike most "metal detectorists" is willing to discuss how it is treated and documented).
* In the further part of Norman Smith's message there is then a thought-provoking comment on the scale of illicit artefact hunting in Britain which I would like to quote and discuss at a later date.
5 comments:
Is there a difinitive number for how many staters were actually found?
No, I am afraid not, there is no way to be certain here. If some of the finders simply pocketed them and told nobody, then there would be simply no way of knowing the number orinally deposited there. Fourteen gold (and two silver) coins were reported (seven during the rally, the other seven afterwards) and are presently being recorded and will be made available for further study and curation in a public collection. The notion there may have been more is hearsay of course, but those who know the milieu best, that is metal detectorists themselves, find nothing implausible in the idea that there may have been even thirty found during the ral;ly itself. Also of course the whole rationale for going back there a fortnight later was to stop others going back and illegally removing what may have been left in the soil (which is nothing less than theft from the landowner if nothing else).
I think this is just one of an increasing number of cases which require us to re-examine our policies and attitudes towards this kind of collection.
So at least 14 gold staters have gone into the public domain, so to speak. 14 more than would have been, had there not been a MD rally. Surely some 'good' came out of all this - for both sides. Our national heritage have 14 more artefacts to drool over for postertiy and the detectorists can feel pleased with themselves for adding to our heritage.
Well, it depends, for most of us, studying the past is actually a little more than just getting our hands on the loose bits of loot to “drool over”.
We really know far too little about the context of discovery of these coins. Seven were found during the rally with no GPS plotting, so we will never know where they were found in relation to those that were plotted by the later archaeologist-supervised search. There are also the persistent doubts among the metal detectorists that all of them were handed over during the rally (as two certainly were not). Were there really 30 coins found at the rally, only a quarter of which were handed over? What is the spatial relationship between those found on the 7th and those found two weeks later? Do the items fall into one scatter or two? How many coins were removed clandestinely by other metal detectorists between the 7th and 20th and where did they come from in relation to the others (and where are they now)?
Surely, once it was clear that a hoard was in question and they were coming from as much as fourteen inches down, should the searching in that region not have been stopped as recommended in the Treasure Act Code of Practice (the PAS FLO actually being at the time ON THE SITE)? The area would then be immediately placed out of bounds and pre-emptively investigated under proper supervision in a way which would have preserved every piece of information about a hoard. At the moment all we have is a handful of bits of stamped metal from a group over which as a result of what happened only several nagging uncertainties hang, is imperfect information always better than no information? Should we be playing "second best" with the heritage?
In the circumstances, I really do not see we are in a position to be able to claim that what was “gained” (14 more or less loose coins) counterbalances what was lost by this group once recognized as such not being properly examined under controlled conditions from the earliest opportunity.
This is the problem with commercial artefact hunting as a whole of course, and raises the whole question of the ethics and purpose of archaeological involvement in it as here.
I presume from your tone that you are a metal detector user – do you REALLY think this debacle is something your milieu has reason to be “proud” of? I am afraid I see commercial artefact hunting of this type with all that it entails rather differently. In my opinion, this is no way to treat the archaeological heritage.
Well, I think a look at "Flogger"s profile http://www.blogger.com/profile/06873647482737218743 (is that flog in the sense of flagellation, or selling I wonder?) it seems to be confirmed that he's a metal detectorist who is not at all interested in civil discussion of the issues.
http://paulbarfordstinx.blogspot.com/
"Don't listen to Paul Barford without an open mind.
He HATES metal detectorists, he derides the PAS, he calls himself an archaeologist, but is happy to 'plunder' the internet for evidence of MD's wrong doing. He publishes pictures without copyright, he publishes text without permission. Is this someone who can be trusted???"
I second that, don't read what Paul Barford writes about artefact hunting and collecting without an open mind. Don't read what artefact collectrs and hunters write about their hobby without an open mind. Don't take on trust what either of them say, join a few metal detecting and collectors' forums and see for yourself what they themselves say about their hobbies.
Most of the thousands of words of TEXT on this blog is my own so needs no "permission" to be here. What is not is properly quoted and properly sourced and it is my belief is "fair use" in terms of:
1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2) the nature of the quoted work;
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the quoted work as a whole; and
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the quoted work.
At least unlike somebody calling themselves "Flogger" I write under my own name...
Post a Comment