The UK Metal Detectorists and the Criminal Gangs

Precious, history-altering group of artefacts, wanted by criminals and historians alike, the story is laid out in full on the Strange But True Crime podcast on BBC Sounds: Nicola Goodwin, 'The buried hoard: A story of treachery and greed' BBC Midlands 30.04.2025

This is a story of treachery, secrecy and greed which led to two friends ending up in jail and a mystery about buried coins. [...] The hoard is believed to have been taken from the Anglo-Saxons by Vikings and buried for safekeeping at about 878 AD. For centuries the coins and jewellery lay undisturbed, buried in the Herefordshire countryside by a Viking warrior in the Ninth Century.

Then some thieving artefact hunters George Powell and Layton Davies discovered it in a field near Leominster in June 2015, dug them up, failed to declare the hoard. Only 31 of an estimated 300 coins of the discovery have been recovered, and the big question is, where is the rest of the hoard? Police believe they are in the hands of organised crime gangs around the world so the hunt for the missing treasure continues. The journalist tells the story of how she "spent years following its journey from a hole in the ground to the fringes of the criminal underworld".

Legally, Powell and Davies, from Pontypridd, should have declared it. If they had done so, they could have become very wealthy men. Instead, they kept it, sold it to dealers and ended up in prison. I have been a reporter for 25 years but this is one of the most intriguing stories I have ever covered. Over the years, I had to keep quiet as the police investigation carried on. I received anonymous tip-offs and one of the criminals even sent me text messages from prison.

Where are the rest of the coins?

Highland metal detectorists group, North Detectorists Create a Waste and call it "Charity"

Philip Murray, 'Highland metal detectorists group, North Detectorists, raise £1200 for Prostate Scotland at charity dig near Culloden, Inverness' Inverness Courier 26 April 2025

Delighted metal detectorists were able to get onto some land near Culloden earlier in April this year and passed it off as a "charity event" and "They raised more in one day than ever before". No mention is made of teh damage done to the archaeological record of teh site searched-for-cash, or about the damage done to the archaeology of the region when not on so-called "charity digs".

Here's their Facebook page, founded four years ago, there's 1162 members and it is PRIVATE and HIDDEN  from you, so you can't see what they are up to. Note the Group's (ahem) "Code of Practice" on the front page.

We're all in this together to create a welcoming environment. Let's treat everyone with respect. Healthy debates are natural, but kindness is required.

No YouTube videos will be allowed to be posted onto the group

Make sure that everyone feels safe. Bullying of any kind isn't allowed, and degrading comments about things such as race, religion, culture, sexual orientation, gender or identity will not be tolerated. also please be polite to fellow members and any badmouthing will not be tolerated

Being part of this group requires mutual trust. Authentic, expressive discussions make groups great, but may also be sensitive and private. What's shared in the group should stay in the group.

Sales: Metal detecting items can be posted but communication will be by private message, to seller, comments will be turned off

Group digs finds agreements: all finds that are not kept by TTU and of value will be split 50/50 with landowner and finder, depending on the threshold value agreement with the landowner ie £200, £300, £400 etc, if the finder wants to keep item then 50% of the value will be paid to landowner by the finder, if this is not possible item will be sold

Insurance: All members must hold a valid NCMD card or it’s (sic) equivalent to attend all group digs and bring it with them on digs

Group Digs Land: All members must fill in holes and replace divots neatly and remove all rubbish unearthed from the field, failure to do so on two separate occasions will result in a ban from all future digs and removed from group

Postings of other groups and competitions: please drop a pm to any of the admin to ask if suitable prior to posting

The group dig finds agreement overrides the law, which is anything on the landowner's land, whether found or not, belongs to the landowner (unless it falls under Scotland's Treasure Trove legislation). So a finder who digs up something and walks off with a find gets to keep it, unless the value is above a value "threshold" [determined by whom, how and when?] in which case they pay ONLY HALF of its value if they decide to keep an item (the landowner's property), or if they sell it (and it seems that is the destiny of many of these items to repay the landowner - again only half its actual value).  No mention is made here of the finds at any time being deposited with the landowner for them to make a decision about the disposition of THEIR property and sign a protocol assigning title of individual items to the finder (so they can legally assign title at the time of sale). Also most of the finds found will be valued ("valued") at less than "£200, - £etc.", but even then, in aggregate that is still a lot of the landowner';s property they are demanding to have signed over, apparently sight-unseen. It is all so amateurish and so obviously open to abuse.  

And anyway, the monetary value is one thing, each time a pay-to-dig rally is organised there is massive destruction of archaeological context by hoiking all this material out of the search site with inadequate (indeed no mention is made  here of ANY) documentation. 

 

.

Winter is Over and William Shephard Takes Advantage of the Good Weather to go Metal Detecting

 

Interesting technique
byu/WaldenFont inmetaldetecting

Professor Dave on the Debate With the Hancockians

 

On the first anniversary of the Flint Dibble debate with Graham Hancock on the Joe Rogan podcast, Dave Farina, ("Professor Dave Explains", @ProfessorDaveExplains 3.72M subscribers 1.7K videos) has produced interesting material "The Great Big Pseudoarcheology Debunk (Graham Hancock and copycat grifters Dan Richards and Jimmy Corsetti)" witty and fairly comprehensive summary of Hancockism as pseudoscience from an outsider (2hrs 2min long). A useful reminder of what has been happening over the last year, worth a look.

Norton Disney Amateur Archaeological Society Making a Fuss in the News Again

I was interested to see the Norton Disney Amateur Archaeology Society making a fuss again. They attempted to gain great publicity over their discovery of a 'dodecahedron', but when problems arose about its actual archaeological context and the way the find was being treated (and why material from archaeological investigations was going onto the PAS database) but also in particular how they were excavating and recording the site, instead of discussing it civilly, people associated with this find first of all were uncivil, then they decided to block me. Amateurish. 

Paul Whitewick has a video up on YouTube that raises some important issues about archaeological information in the public domain concerning the grumpy and defensive Norton Disney Society:

.

' The Roman Dodecahedron Debate Nobody Expected' Posted on You Tube Apr 13, 2025

.

He writes:

I was altered to a BBC Sounds interview from BBC Radio Lincolnshire recently. It discussed the "Fake" Roman Dodecahedron and how it has caused upset. Naturally I was keen to listen. Here is a brief discussion on why I need to rant a tad about it.

The Article in Question: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0l1....

Original License suggesting CC [it is actually the PAS record Unique ID: LIN-BC9890 - PMB]: https://web.archive.org/web/202401230...

When and how the CC license was changed: https://web.archive.org/web/diff/2024...

The photo attribution was changed from "Rights Holder: Lorena Hitchens" to "Rights Holder: Lincolnshire County Council" and a note added to the PAS record:

"Notes:

Enquiries relating to the creation of 3D Models.

Please note that a license from the private owner of that object is required before creating and distributing a 3D model of the dodecahedron. However, the owner is choosing to remain anonymous. There will be a published report that will be submitted to the Lincolnshire Historic Environment Record (HER) although again the report will still be copyrighted by its author(s), so again, permission is required to use that (sic) data for any models."

And "the [anonymous] private owner" is the same person that hides under the umbrella of respectability the PAS record provides? Yet both the common heritage belongs to us all, and the PAS database is there to make information about it (INCLUDING its shape, appearance, dimensions, weight, colour publicly available - for all to use... that's the blooming point of it). So what is going on here? Paul Whitewick has a valid point, and I'd be interested to hear the PAS expand on what their attitude is to all this. 

This is however not a new issue with these amateurs: British Archaeology and Duodecahedral Mystery Fever (III): This is Mine! PACHI 6 May 2024

Lost Arts of Nepal Vienna Sale

 

Notification by  Lost Arts of Nepal ( @LostArtsofNepal) FAITH STOLEN - Nepalese antiquities on sale today right under our noses at Galerie Zacke Auction, Vienna Austria 10/11th April 2025. Where is the documentation verifying they are not stolen?

GALLERY ZACKE since 1968 - "House of tradition" (sic) for antique Asian art, known for the largest exhibitions and auctions of non-European art in Austria. But how does in get there? By what rigtht is it spold there, instead of being repatriated in the case of items that are illcit (ie have no proper documentation of legal acquisition and export)?

Lots  24 ( From a London dealership, acquired in the local art market.), 26 (The collection of Dr. John Ross Sr., thence by descent to his son and thence by further direct descent), and 28 -31 "from the Collection of Raymond & Marsha Vargas Handley" (28 - Spink & Son, London, 1987; 29 - Spink & Son, London, 1987 (invoice lost); 30 - Spink & Son, London, 1987 (invoice lost). 31 - Hardt & Sons, New York, United States, 15 February 2003)

Raymond G. Handley (1923-2009) partnered with Ray Renault in the 1950s to co-found one of California’s oldest and most successful real estate development firms. They were pioneers in shaping the early landscape of Silicon Valley, developing buildings for major tech innovators such as Intel and Raytheon, laying the groundwork for the region’s transformation into a global technology hub. Raymond Handley was a keen collector of art who traveled extensively, including the most remote parts of Papua New Guinea and Africa. In Mali, where his brother served as the Ambassador of the United States, he drilled more than fifty water wells for Dogon villages. His passion led him to establish Folk Art International/Xanadu Tribal Arts, an ethnographic art business which developed into the Xanadu Gallery in the late 1990s, located in the historic Frank Lloyd Wright building off Union Square, and continued by his widow Marsha Vargas Handley until her retirement in 2015. Having opened her first gallery in the Bay Area in 1973, she is an important figure in the Asian art world in her own right, serving as the president of the International Netsuke Society for over 16 years. Raymond Handley’s first visit to Spink & Son took place in the early 1980s, between Christmas and New Year’s, when much of the staff was away on vacation. During this visit, Raymond was captivated by the gallery's impressive selection of fine works and quickly amassed a collection of over 100 items he intended to purchase. This large number caused some concern for Anthony Gardner, head of Spink’s Southeast Asian Department, who had never dealt with such a sizable transaction. As the total approached 108 items, Anthony suggested Raymond stop there, citing it as an auspicious number. To this day, 108 remains the record for the most works sold in a single day, and it became customary thereafter for the staff to remain at work during the holiday period.

Towards Updating the Artefact Erosion Counter

The original version of the Artefact Erosion Counter in the left margin of this blog was created in the middle of 2018 when there were thought to be 29000/30000 active detectorists in the UK. This figure now seems to have changed (https://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2025/03/when-are-british-archaeologists-going.html). 

The table looks like this (the square brackets indicate that we really can have no certainty about how many UK detectorists complied with lockdown regulations - the figures should be treated as nominal maximums) 

Year	No. of detectorists	No. of finds p/a
2018	29/30,000	907,500
2019	32,000	968,000
2020	33,000	[998,250]
2021	34,000	[1,028,500]
2022	36,000	1,089,000
2023	37,000	1,119,250
2024	38,000	1,149,500

Extrapolating, the figures it looks like there might be c. 39000 detectorists at the end of 2025 and at the standard rate, they will have found 1,257,750 recordable artefacts in this one year alone.

I will not set up a new counter at the moment, but it is clear from this that the existing one is ticking too slowly. Using the figures given above (and beginning by subtracting the c. 5,445,000 artefacts calculated at the 2018 rate), starting from the end of 2018 and ending on 31st Dec 2024 (and ignoring the issue of quantifying the Covid shortfall as unquantifiable) the counter should have counted off 6,382, 750 artefacts). So instead of at the very beginning of 2025 it should have read 19,389,186  objects/.

The PAS database today (four  months later) reads "1,802,884 objects within 1,165,711 records" for England and Wales. That's not looking good.

Trespassing Artefact Hunter Caught Red-Handed with Metal Detector At Two in the Morning Looting a Norfolk Field

BBC 'Nighthawk suspect arrested in field' BBC 9th April 2025

A man has been arrested on suspicion of illegal metal detecting [...] Norfolk Police said officers patrolling Methwold Hythe, near Downham Market, spotted activity in a field at about 02:30 BST on Monday. A man in his 40s was arrested on suspicion of theft. Officers said a metal detector and spade were seized along with a quantity of metal coins. The suspect was taken to King's Lynn Police Investigation Centre for questioning, and was released on bail until 12 June.

Interestingly, perhaps the tide is turning and the message is getting through, this is the first such reportt that I have seen for ages without the cut-and-paste addition that "the majority of metal detectorisys are responsible law abiding searchers, reporting all they find increasing our knowledge of the past". Good. Because its not true.

The Taş Tepeler project in Turkey

 The Taş Tepeler project in southeastern Turkey, centered around Şanlıurfa Province, involves the excavation of multiple prehistoric sites dating back to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period (approximately 10,000–7,000 BCE). These sites are significant for the occurrence on some of them of monumental T-shaped pillars and the insights they provide into the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to settled communities. The project currently encompasses the following excavated sites:

• Göbeklitepe: The most famous site, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, known for its large circular enclosures with T-shaped limestone pillars, some decorated with animal reliefs. Excavations began in 1995 and continue to reveal structures from around 9600–7000 BCE.
• Karahantepe: Located about 46 kilometers from Şanlıurfa, this site features over 250 T-shaped megaliths and evidence of both ritual and domestic use. Excavations started in 2019 and have uncovered realistic human statues and enclosures.
• Sayburç: This site has yielded a notable relief depicting a five-figure scene with humans, leopards, and a bull, considered one of the earliest narrative carvings from the Neolithic. Some of the buildings had T-shaped pillars, some in the shape of human figures. Excavations are ongoing.
• Harbetsuvan Tepesi: Situated 7 kilometers southwest of Karahantepe, it’s a smaller site (about 5 decares), currently under excavation.The stone structures, partially destroyed by later damage, consisted of rectangular buildings, at least one of which was equipped with a pair of stone pillars at the centrer. Stone construction included an important finding: a seated male sculpture resembling those recovered at Göbeklitepe and Karahantepe
• Gürcütepe: Part of the initial seven sites announced in 2021, it’s being explored for its Neolithic remains, though specific findings are less publicized.
• Çakmaktepe: Another of the original seven, this site is under active excavation, contributing to the broader understanding of the region’s prehistory.
• Sefertepe: Included in the initial phase, it’s being excavated to uncover T-shaped obelisks and related structures.
• Yeni Mahalle Mound: Also among the first seven, this site near Şanlıurfa is part of the ongoing digs, revealing early settlement evidence.
• Kurttepesi: One of the twelve identified sites with T-shaped pillars, currently under excavation as part of the expanded project.
• Taşlıtepe: A site similar in scale to Harbetsuvan, it’s being excavated to explore its Neolithic features.
• Ayanlar Höyük: Located 30 kilometers west of Şanlıurfa, it’s under investigation, though no T-shaped stelae have been found yet, suggesting it may have been a cult center.
• Yoğunburç: Added to the excavation list, it’s being studied for its contributions to the Neolithic narrative.
• Söğüt Tarlası-Biris Mezarlığı is a site located about 32 km northwest of Şanlıurfa, just south of the city center of Bozova 

The Taş Tepeler project, launched in 2021 by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, initially focused on seven sites (Göbeklitepe, Karahantepe, Gürcütepe, Sayburç, Çakmaktepe, Sefertepe, and Yeni Mahalle) but has since expanded to include twelve locations, with nine actively excavated as of 2024. The project aims to excavate a total of twelve sites by 2024, though some, like Nevalı Çori (submerged by a dam) and Hamzan Tepe, are not currently active dig sites within this initiative. Excavations are ongoing, with plans to transform findings into tourist destinations, reflecting the region’s role as a cradle of early civilization.

Archaeology and the Public

Jimmy Corsetti (apparently hungover, unshaven with dark glasses and a stupid hat): "A detailed analysis of the dire circumstances occurring at Gobekli Tepe, and some awesome behind the scenes shots of when I “snuck” into Gobekli Tepe with him. It's worse than I thought"... Wandering Wolf Productions (@WWolfProd) Gobekli Tepe: Olive Trees Removed! Shocking Footage! (2025 Update) w/‪@BrightInsight‬ and ‪@NikkianaJones‬ @WWolfProd 

This is distressing watching. I have always said that archaeology is not rocket science" and the mouthy US YouTubers in this video clearly think they understand everything about the discipline and as such are uniquely entitled to trash the work of the DAI archaeological team, the Turkish heritage management officers and any archaeologist attempting to engage with them, this comes out very well in this video. What also comes over in this video is that all three of these "content producers" understand about as much of what they are looking at as one of the goats in the fields outside the fence. Zero. That is despite them writing pages and pages of rant about how "only they" "know" what's what here. What a total eyeopener, it seems I might have severely overestimated the understanding of members of the public. 

Although the film editor Mike Collins drops some real howlers in the first part and at the end, I propose in this post concentrating on the central part of the video. Jimmy Corsetti  wearing a ridiculous hat indoors explaining what he thinks he sees when on the walkway looking directly down onto the site. Let me remind everyone what the site looks like, what he is looking at. What do you see here?

And what does Jimmy Corsetti see?    Here's the video (transcript below)

Posted on You Tube by Wandering Wolf​ 3rd April.

Here's what he had to say:

"So, I’ve been out here and just got back—been walking around for about 30 minutes. A few things stand out, one of which is, this is worse than I thought. Look at all this debris. These stones—there’s so much that could stand to be removed. Are you telling me they couldn’t have cleared more than this by now?(1)

If you really stop and study the site, it’s hard to understand how they haven’t cleared more of it. All the photos I’ve seen online didn’t truly convey the reality. They didn’t paint a full picture of just how much more of this could’ve already been excavated. That’s the first thing.

The second thing is this infrastructure they’ve put in—the viewing platforms, the steel frames stabbing directly into the archaeological site itself (2). That tells me there’s no real intention to fully excavate the area. They’d have to dismantle those platforms to do it, and it doesn’t look like that’s on the table.

Then there's number three — this whole debate about whether the site was purposely buried or just covered by natural landslides (3). What archaeologists are now saying is, “No, no, it was a result of landslides from the hill above.” But I’m looking at that hill right now, and I’m sorry—it just doesn’t add up. The hill is right there, and yet the pillars are still standing upright, surrounded by these stones. If this was a landslide, those pillars would’ve been knocked over or destroyed. But they weren’t. This gives every reason to believe that the stones were intentionally stacked and that the site was purposely buried, just like Klaus Schmidt—the original archaeologist here—originally thought. I’m just not seeing how that little hill could explain all of this. It’s not big enough to justify saying it slid down in multiple landslides over time. I’ve got extensive video and photos from up there. I’ve looked. It just doesn’t make sense to me. In my mind, everything here validates the idea of intentional burial.

But honestly, man, my big takeaway, my gut reaction, is just this: they could’ve removed more by now. Look at all these stones. Look at how much is still buried. Why haven’t they done it?

It’s either that they won’t—or at least, they haven’t—and that’s inexcusable. From an archaeological excavation standpoint, this is actually worse than I thought. And we haven’t even gone to the areas where the trees are, or around the upper perimeter. There’s more to see, sure, but from what I’ve already seen?  Disappointing. The excavation is way less than what it could be. I don’t know what else to say.

Are you seeing what I’m seeing? Even just removing a few more feet of earth would make a difference. So why haven’t they done it?

There are still plenty of pillars buried in the earth all the way around here. Why won’t they excavate those? Why won’t they expose what’s depicted on them?

Because as it stands now, most of the pillars are still so deeply buried that you can’t even see what’s carved into them. And if they’re not going to uncover that — man, get out of here.

Where to begin? 

(1) "All this debris", "These stones", "look at all these stones" , "a few more feet of earth". Look at the vertical view of the site above. Rightly or wrongly, the archaeologists have just removed the infill of several sunken oval structures with stone T-shaped pillars together with parts of the upper layers of adjacent areas. They have stopped when they hit structures - such as walls. We can see there are many phases of intercutting and abutting walls, many forming concentric vertical layers like a section through an onion. In among them are the pillars, some are standing free within the enclosed space, others are embedded in the outermost (innermost in terms of the internal space) wall rebuild, but others are embedded in teh walls behind them. I do not know what the excavators make of this, I would guess that one possible interpretation is that this site was been used seasonally and between phases of use the oval structures became a bit dilapidated and had to be repaired, and instead of dismantling them and rebuilding them to save time this was done by adding another layer of wall on the face of the previous one where necessary.

In excavation, the diggers have only exposed the minimum required by the research programme, to begin dismantling the sequence of the walls that we see preserved would be an extremely complicated task (and to my eye impossible without applying single-context recording which I am pretty sure looking at the trenches was not the method used to excavate this so far - more like an adaption of a Kenyon-type technique?). And wisely, the excavators have not attempted this. But they do need to record the exposed surface and amalgamate that with the data on what was removed and what was in that fill (I'd suggest - if that's not what they've done - reverse engineering the record as far as possible into a single-context record).

It seems Jimmy Corsaetti sees here a "pile of stones" (elsewhere he speaks of "stacked stones") that could easily be removed (in one of his rants on X he speaks of his puzzlement that it's enough just to get a "pressure hose" on the site to reveal the pillars and the pictures on them). He simply cannot see (even standing on a walkway looking down directly onto them with an explanatory table by the side) the complex stratigraphy. The many phases of the wall rebuilds are invisible to him.