Tuesday 15 January 2019

Damage to the Archaeological Record Caused by Collection-Driven Exploitation of Archaeological Sites (A Typology of Hoik Holes)


Metal detecting hole

Having just read a Bangor professor's account of traces of Collection-driven artefact hunting on published Austrian sites, and knowing (as he has admitted), he does not take part in it himself, he and his readers might benefit from an account of how it is generally done and its effects on the archaeological record. There are basically seven types of hole dug in this process, and I'll present them briefly below:


Dangerous digging
Hoik hole type A (otherwise known as the 'effingbighole method'), huge hole of varying shapes and sizes, generally big enough to stand in, dug blindly down into the invisible archaeological record and the loose upcast searched through for any collectable items (may involve metal detector use). In this process the upcast is spread about and mixed. Even after weathering and natural bioturbation, if filled in, this will likely register as a 'pit' in subsequent excavation (example, holes dug the hole dug in collection-driven extraction of non-metallic artefacts in UK, or in similar looting in S. America, MENA region and so on)


Bellingham hoard hoik in progress (Facebook)
 
Hoik hole type B (otherwise known as the 'nuvverbit over-ere' method), huge hole of varying shapes and sizes, dug blindly down into the invisible archaeological record with the use of a detecting device driving the expansion of the hole by detecting successive targets to dig out. Often in the heat of the search the upcast is spread about or heaped, in the process mixing it. These holes can be dug by hand (Holborough) or machine. Even when infilled, after weathering and natural bioturbation, this will likely register as a 'pit' in subsequent excavation (example, the hole dug to retrieve the Bellingham Hoard




Lenborough chaos
Hoik hole type C, fairly large and irregular vertical-sided hole, dug blindly down deep  into the invisible archaeological record on either grassland or into firmer layers below the ploughsoil where directed by a metal detector signal. In such a hole, stratigraphical observation, let alone documentation, is very difficult to achieve, if not totally impossible. In the digging of such holes, the upcast is often scattered around and mixed. Even after weathering and natural bioturbation, infilled, holes like this will probably register as a 'pit' in subsequent excavation (example, the hole dug to hastily retrieve the Lenborough Hoard). Holes like this are typically employed where Treasure hunters have strong signal from archaeological layers under the ploughsoil.


Scattered 'axe hoard' hole (5:52)
Hoik hole type D, moderate size and  relatively shallow, dug into loose soil (such as ploughsoil, garden soil) due to which the hole is amorphous. Dug blindly down into and often through a patterned artefact scatter contained in the upper layers of a site (in other words the archaeological record  - see also here and here on the ploughsoil evidence destroyed by artefact hunting). This is usually done on detecting a hidden buried metal artefact with a metal detector. Dug with various types of spade. The depth of the hole is determined by the depth of penetration of the metal detector used and teh characteristics of the (generally small) target item. After the find has been found in the upcast or sides of the hole the loose upcast is shoved back in the hole. Unless there are other, detailed records, and the hole has not penetrated the subsoil, the disturbance to the site (and the patterned artefact scatter that is one of its manifestations) will be undetectable in any subsequent investigation.  
 
Scene from Series 3 of 'Detectorists'
Hoik hole type E, moderate size and fairly regular, dug blindly down into the invisible archaeological record on detecting a hidden buried metal artefact with a metal detector by using a digging tool to cut a large (spade size) 'plug'. Usually employed on pasture sites and permanent grassland. The size of the hole is determined by the ease of lifting the plug whole. After the find has been located with minimal disturbance of the plug by use of a pinpointer, the plug can be ire-inserted and stamped down. Depending on the type of soil and the way the plug is handled and reinserted, the traces in plan may be a few thin spadecuts that could largely disappear during weathering and natural bioturbation.


Hoik hole type F, Small and fairly regular, often vertical. These holes are dug blindly down into the invisible archaeological record on detecting a hidden buried metal artefact with a metal detector by using a digging tool like a small narrow trowel or posthole digging spade (sold by metal detector suppliers) to cut a small narrow plug. The size of the hole means that the earth of different deposits may not get mixed much (and often a dropcloth is used), so in general what goes into the hole is what came out. After the soil is replaced and firmly stamped down the trace in plan may be a narrow zone of slightly discoloured soil that, could look like a small postjhole or stakehole, or may largely disappear during subsequent weathering and natural bioturbation.




Leverage for dummies
Hoik hole type G (aka the 'leverage method'), Here the hole dug and soil disturbance are minimal. having located the buried object a thin blade or probe is gently pushed blindly down into the invisible archaeological record and the object levered up through a narrow cut in the overlying material. The small size of the disturbance means that the traces in the soil of the site are barely visible and will largely disappear during weathering and natural bioturbation. (Here's a video of shallow usage and another one). Used where possible by treasure hunters who don't want people to know they've been there.

Artefact Hunting type H, eyes only, no hole is dug, artefacts collected directly from surface exposures such as ploughed surfaces, pipeline wayleaves, or stream banks. 


Despite a lot of 'liaison', it is unclear what proportion of the various methods of collectable-acquisition are used on British sites.  What can be said however is that given the depth of penetration of most metal detectors in the case of single items, hole digging of types A, B and C, generally associated with hoards, graves and other such concentrations of metal objects  would be in the minority. In England and Wales, when we have annually about 800-1000 Treasure items reported (many - but not all - of which came from such holes dug by the finder), the number of (reported and unreported) finds from shallower hoiking (types D, E, F and G as well as deeper holes) may reach as many as 800 000 items a year. Thus the traces of artefact hunting that are reflected in holes dug into the underlying archaeological layers recognised in subsequent excavation - even if the slight traces of some of these techniques are actually being looked for, is in no way a reflection of the scale, scope and type of  depletion and damage to the archaeological record of a region by Collection-Driven Exploitation of the archaeological record. 





10 comments:

Raimund Karl said...

Thanks for providing this interesting typology, Paul. As you rightly say, I do not actually take part in metal detecting activities; though I do regularly direct 'collection-driven exploitations of archaeological sites', namely, professional archaeological excavations.

That said, the true fact that I do not engage in metal detecting does not mean that I do not know how it is generally done, or its effects on the archaeological record. Indeed, my study that you linked to should amply demonstrate that I do know, and indeed have studied its effect on the archaeological record quite meticulously (by systematically examining the records of c. 10% of all professional archaeological excavations conducted within the borders of today's Austria since c. 1850).

That I do not know how it is done or its effects on the archaeological record, luckily, does not necessarily follow from not personally engaging in the practice; and I assume you are not trying to say that unless on engages in 'collection-driven exploitation of archaeological sites' by oneself 'hoiking' archaeology out of the ground unprofessionally, one necessarily does not know how it is done or its effects on the archaeological record. Because if you would say that, given your magisterial knowledge of the practice and its effects on the archaeological record, as (almost) evident from this wonderful typology of 'hoik holes', that would logically necessitate that you yourself are indeed personally engaging in this practice and have yourself dug many a 'hoik hole' during your own 'collection-driven exploitation of archaeological sites'.

At any rate, to further update your magisterial 'hoik hole' typology, you seem to have missed at least two further type of particularly bad 'hoik holes': 'hoik holes type I', extremely large holes dug with a mechanical digger to get at deeper strata which might contain collectible finds; and 'hoik holes type J', deep ploughing by farmers to get collectible finds buried in deeper strata closer to the surface to get them within the penetration range of the average detector.

And then, of course, there is also the 'hoik hole type K', which is professional archaeological excavations where all topsoil and up to over 90% of subsoil contexts on archaeological sites of in excess of 1 hectare size are totally excavated (or destroyed without even pretending to excavate or record them other than in plan) by mechanical digger. I know at least one excellent example of this, because it was displayed as a 'best professional practice'-example in an exhibition on French 'preventative' archaeology, which we were lucky to visit as part of the EAC conference that was held in Paris in 2012 (I think, it may have been 2011). I'm sure you missed this type entirely by mistake...

Paul Barford said...

>I do regularly direct 'collection-driven exploitations of archaeological sites'<

Oh? So, are you saying you have a private artefact collection? Celtic metalwork like John Hooker? That would explain a lot. I presume that is in the UK rather than objects extracted from sites in Austria? Are all your artefacts reported to the PAS? I have read your text, most carefully. I don't think much of it and am surprised it was accepted for publication in that form. The only reason I have reviewed it is because there is a danger that it will be picked up by supporters of artefact hunting and collecting. in order that Raimund Karl does not monopolise the blog for a week, it is scheduled to go up on, as I recall, Friday. I invite you to respond should you so wish.

This thing about the holes was put up early so those texts (at the moment its three parts, I may merge two) can refer back to it, and the "Diplodicus Snark' spoof post which takes some explaining for a four-line section of your text. Just to get a bit of balance and flow in the actual review.

I'll be doing one on the pointless Father Christmas stunt later, but am not in a hurry because it is pointless.

Question: did you ever work in the BDA or any state heritage organisation? What's your beef with them? Why all the obvious antagonism? It really comes over as something personal.

What you attempt facetiously to define as a "type I" is nothing more than type A

You cannot have a hole that is not a hole, so your attempted type J is out (and I do not recall you mentioning searching those reports for that kind of damage - so that's another thing that casts doubt on whether any reliance at all can be placed on supposedly "reliable statistical results" which are flawed enough as it is.

>. And then, of course, there is also the 'hoik hole type K', which is professional archaeological excavations <
and here I think you show that you utterly fail to understand what this blog is about.

> I'm sure you missed this type entirely by mistake...<
No, it is you that is mistaken.

Paul Barford said...

Oh, and while you're here, what the devil is this (p 4) about? - "This is especially so since it cannot be assumed that motives for and benefits gained by looting (here without scare quotes - why?) are the same all over the world". Why is this here? Who says they are? Can you give us a reference where somebody has - you claim - made assessments of damage (in Austria??) from generalisations from sites looted in Iraq? Bonkers. The first three paragraphs of that second section of yours sound like pure Donald Trump. In the part of continental scholarship that I operate in, before you present your 'new method' you are supposed to demonstrate you know the literature of what has gone before. Here you do not do that (and you might like to look up - on this blog if nowhere else the date of and reasons for the looting in southern Iraq.... the site you show in Fig 2 was mainly looted in the 1990s, before the 2003 War)

Raimund Karl said...

Just very quickly:

> Oh? So, are you saying you have a private artefact collection?

No, I do not own a private artefact collection. I am directing professional archaeological excavations which recover finds and record evidence which eventually either is returned to the landowner for their private collection or disposal, however they see fit, is added to my employer's archaeological collection as held in Bangor Museum, is deposited in the collection of some other suitable museum, or goes into the archaeological collection of the relevant heritage agency. I don't keep any of it, since I could neither propery conserve, nor properly keep, not properly make it accessible to the public, though bluntly, neither can many of the museums or heritage agencies where I deposit the artefacts recovered and records created if they are not returned to the landowner.
Regardless, unless they are returned to the landowners and they dispose of them, both the artefacts and records are created with the purpose of depositing them in a collection. That collection isn't mine, but it's a collection nonetheless. As such, when I direct an archaeological excavation, I am normally exploiting the archaeological record for the purpose of adding to someone's collection, making this collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record.

Paul Barford said...

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. Archaeology is not merely collecting 'things', and 'collecting old things' is not archaeology. So I use the term collection-driven exploitation (of...) as a replacement for that junk term metal detecting (but it could apply to lithics too as in the USA arrowhead hunting) which is in opposition to the idea that we systematically analyse an archaeological site or assemblage to document the information they hold. Artefacts are only one component of that information. Nineteenth century excavators produced a 'collection', I rather think that today we produce a project archive. The typical metal detectorist's heap of artefacts is by no means the same as what should be in a museum or archaeological store. It is this confusion of yours that has led to your paper mainly being - in my opinion - tendentious rather than enlightening. I have always said that the problem with debates on collecting, especially in English, is a failure to define concepts better and a waryness of calling a spade a spade, and I think that is one of the places this text of yours falls down - pages 1 to 2 are a conceptual mess and that title.....

Raimund Karl said...

Oh, and another point, to answer your question:

> Question: did you ever work in the BDA or any state heritage organisation? What's your beef with them? Why all the obvious antagonism?

Whether I ever worked for the BDA or any state heritage agency depends on what you consider as having worked for them. If working on their excavations as a digger counts, I have. If it doesn't count, it doesn't.

And since you're wondering what my beef with them is: in stark difference to you, I am upset if archaeologists employed as public officials entrusted by the state with the power to enforce heritage law arbitrarily do not enforce it against their peers, even though they know and have proof that they have broken it (thereby themselves breaking not just the public trust invested in them, but also other - i.e 'non-heritage', but rather public administration - laws); but at the same time report ordinary citizens who engage entirely legally in a legally permitted activity to the prosecuting authorities and in statements to them misrepresent the facts and the law in a way that encourages the courts to erroneously convict them. In my opinion, such behaviour is not just highly unprofessional, but risks, if it ever were brought before the courts, to be highly damaging to both the interests of our profession and the archaeological heritage and its protection.

Particularly in Austria, this is a real risk these days, given that following an audit by the Austrian Federal Court of Audit, the BDA came close to being abolished and replaced (if at all) by a private sector 'Heritage limited company' due to its malpractice and incompetent (financial, administrative and heritage) management.

Thus, I criticise my colleagues in the BDA for the mistakes they make, so that they get a chanve to correxct them before they blow up in their faces. I do so in clear and sometimes harsh words, as appropriate for the gravity of the mistake.

At the same time, I collaborate with them on and support them in many things and many ways, but publicly and not so publicly, trying to improve heritage protection and its management to the best of my abilities. It's just that in your tribal identity politics mindset, you neither understand the concept of loyal dissent, nor the concept of criticism of professional malpractice, nor of constructive criticisms of mistakes and problems with the performance of heritage agencies, but take them as 'personal attacks'. As is a common problem with dogmatic fanatics: they see the world in 'us' and 'them', in 'friends' and 'enemies', and thus are unable to have a grown-up debate about the issues that really matter.

Raimund Karl said...

> Archaeology is not merely collecting 'things', and 'collecting old things' is not archaeology.

Thank you for telling me something really new and surprising! Why didn't I think of that?

You don't seem to understand that even the systematic analysis of 'an archaeological site or assemblage to document the information they hold' ultimately serves the purpose of adding to a collection. That this is a collection of data, knowledge, and perhaps even some significant insights into something, rather than (just) a collection of mostly insignificant objects, doesn't change the fact that it is a collection.

I do perfectly get what you are trying to do by coming up with new names for all kinds of things (and people, which incidentally is seriously insulting and bullying, but I guess that's the intent so I don't need to tell you about it). The problem is, you both chose your new terms very badly, and mostly seem to chose intentionally offensive terms, without apparently even noticing. It's not helping your case, and indeed, it is frequently hurting it.

Which incidentally, to some extent, I find rather sad, because by and large I think both you and I are trying to achieve the very same thing: to improve the protection of the archaeological heritage from avoidable damage. We may sometimes, perhaps even often, disagree on how best to achieve this goal. But sadly, you can't see that disagreement on the how to achieve it is not the same as disagreement about the aim. Anyway, it doesn't matter in the end, because you've taken yourself out of the game by your behaviour.

Paul Barford said...

Yet you pass judgement on others:
the paper [...] is one of the worst pieces of 'scholarship' I have seen in a long time (and that is including first year undergraduate essays). It is riddled all over with fundamental and basic methodological flaws and even basic arithmetic errors; [...] This has nothing whatsoever to do with being a supporter or opponent of 'collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record' [oh yeah?]. It only has to do with trying to get reliable data and analyse it rationally. "
Let us see how you fare. Glass houses and stones.



Paul Barford said...

> Archaeology is not merely collecting 'things', and 'collecting old things' is not archaeology. Thank you for telling me something really new and surprising! Why didn't I think of that?<
and yet you go on as if you did not. You are in fact deliberately distorting what I say to avoid actually discussing it. There is nothing "offensive" in CDE, its descriptive, and has a purpose.


>your tribal identity politics mindset<
ummmm.... Guest on my blog?

> dogmatic fanatics<
errrr.... Guest on my blog?


> unable to have a grown-up debate about the issues that really matter< aaahhh. Guest on my blog?

and you of course are so totally superior that you can. Great. Go and have it with someone else.

Paul Barford said...

Raimund Karl elsewhere... "I remember that quite a long time ago, Paul was a reasonably nice chap with at least some quite good ideas. It's only in more recent times that he seems to have gone ever further down his particular rabbit hole and started to take a Manichean worldview, where you're either a 100% with him, or the enemy. Funny thing is, a good deal of the people he attacks actually want things that are not all that far away from what he at least allegedly wants, and could thus be useful allies. But rather, he turns on them, driving away even those who might actually have provided him with the occasionally useful support... ;-("

https://www.facebook.com/groups/20505278656/permalink/10156225045293657/?comment_id=10156225289893657&reply_comment_id=10156225334168657&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R1%22%7D

"at least allegedly wants"...

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.