Somerset Landowner Asks Finders to Break the Law and Refuses Access to Treasure Find, did he Refuse the Treasure Ransom Too?

The archaeologists that dug up a Treasure find in a muddy field in Somerset in 2013 reportedly left behind them such a mess that the landowner was angered - and this is why why they were not invited back to uncover more.... So the next hoard was uncovered and recorded without the archaeologists at the land owners request...

Fact is the Land owner didn't like the way you Archies left the land... There land was left in a right state... So when they found ANOTHER hoard the land owner requested NOT to inform them because they (Archies) left a mess... So they had no opion but to recover and record themselves... 

Assuming the finders went against the landowner'd request "not to inform" the authorities (which would be against the law), this is possibly the second hoard: Record ID: SOM-9F1577

"[...] They were removed from the field by the finder. The finder reports [...] Although some scraps of pottery were in the area [...] [they] were not retained by the finder". 

 If that's it, some "record" these clowns made. Of course the point is lost on them that if the proper arrangements cannot be made for the finds from a project to be dealt with according to the Code of Practice of the Treasure Act, they have absolutely no business searching in the first place, and certainly the Treasure reward should be waive from both the finder as well as the non-compliant landowner.

It is however very difficult using the PAS search engine to verify this, the "map results" facility shows just FOUR hoards found since 2013, though the search results it is purported to be mapping consist of 138 records, but among them is a huge contamination from the IARC records, some of which go back to the 19th century, so the PAS search engine once again turns out to be a pretty useless "tool" as a source of any kind of reliable information.

Metal detecting at CIfA in Leeds (1)

Anyone can dig stuff up

For some reason, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists decided to devote a session of their Leeds meeting to the humble metal detector. The session was organised for them by Keith Westcott of the "Association of Detectorists" (sic) and the "Detectorists Foundation" (sic). Here's me on the draft programme: PACHI Friday, 9 November 2018: '"Detectorists" Take over First Session of Charted Institute for Archaeologists Conference'.  They announced back in August last year that the videos were 'online', but that was not true: PACHI Tuesday, 6 August 2019, 'CIfA Leeds April Conference Presentations on Metal Detector Use Online [UPDATED]'. 

Now, nearly a year later, the videos have been put online by  Doug Rocks-Macqueen (Communicating the values of archaeologists to detectorists and embedding metal detecting into professional practice). As might be expected, if you don't get the terminology sorted out before you start, they were talking in one breath about (at least) two different things. It is not clear how many of those listening caught on. The session keynote is this from  Keith Westcott, of his "Association of Detectorists":

From the public’s perspective, metal detecting is a current and significant element within the heritage and archaeological environment. The accessibility of the hobby and the media propensity towards stories of ‘treasure’ offers the public a tangible link to our portable past whether through active participation or visually through news articles and museums exhibits.

That seems a bit gobbldy-gookish: from the public’s perspective, I'd say they were getting muddled messages about the part played by collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record in the "the heritage and archaeological environment" . "The media propensity towards stories of ‘treasure’  offers"< what? (the public a tangible link to what?) It does not make sense. But hey, "metal detectorist"....

To many, the discovery of an artefact equates to success resulting from physically searching into the past, whilst little is understood as to how the interpretation of contextual information to be gained from a find spot can further the collective knowledge of our heritage.

But, surely, that is what the PAS was set up to do, 23 years ago. It is their number one aim in the 2003 "five underlying aims". Millions of pounds have been spent on this... wasted, it seems. Next the metal detectorist admits the problem:

With artefacts being a depleting resource,

Think about that for a moment. We find out that killing elephants, rhinos and whales is leading to dangerously low numbers, so the "responsible hunters", being aware of that, pledge to....

it is important to address the social divide between academically educated archaeologists and the hobbyists protecting their current freedoms.

...carry on. The hobbyist artefact hunters are protecting their current freedoms to carry on hunting. Silently stripping out the diagnostic artefacts from sites all over the country. That, Mr Westcott suggests, is not a problem, what the real problem is that nasty academically educated people, educated in the way to observe and document the traces of the past in archaeological sites "don't want" to cross the "social divide" to meet the hobbyists like Tattooed Harry, Keith Chetwynd, Kris Rodgers, Norman Smith, Stephen Auker,  Mark Becher, Kevin Anderson,  Ged Dodd, Steve Taylor , John Howland and Buz Thugwit.   So Mr Westcott has an idea how to bridge that "social divide": 

How should archaeologists communicate their values in order to positively influence the mindset of detectorists? Is there value in recognizing the potential of the metal detector by embedding their use into professional practice?

Here in two sentences is the essence of the problem. The metal detector is a tool. So are spades. Let's replace the word "m...dtr"  with "spade"  to show how this works:

How should archaeologists communicate their values in order to positively influence the mindset of navvies? Is there value in recognising the potential of the spade by embedding their use into professional practice?

Now obviously of PART of archaeological professional practice is excavating, it might go better if you had a tool for- for example - cutting turf, putting in fixed benchmarks, erecting noticeboards for the public. So yes, there is a place for spades (too) in archaeological professional practice. The question is  to what degree we can "communicate our values" (I think he means educate but is scared to say the "e" word) labourers? Can council maintenance workers be educated by the archaeologists to excavate and record archaeological features they encounter when repairing or extending a storm drain or laying electric cables for street lights and signs? Is there a need to send archaeologists out when such work takes place in archaeologically sensitive areas if we can only educate the labourers to do the job properly for us? And if we can, and "anyone can do this", why in the blazes do we need any "Chartered Institute" for hole diggers?

I presume the ironic tone there was perceptible. The problem is that professional archaeologists are not just "educated people", but they have been educated in a particular specialism. If I am going to have my gall bladder out, I would not be all that happy about being told that I was going to be operated on by "an educated guy", if that education was in fact an MA in seventeenth century English literature, and the anaesthesiologist was a flautist in the local opera who'd written a thesis at teh Sorbonne on "Debussy and the musical representation of colour", or whatever. What does "the phrase archaeologists communicating their values in order to positively influence the mindset of artefact hunters" mean? Let's take a look at the five presentations to see what the participants made of it all.

Metal detecting at CIfA in Leeds (2) Metal Detector Use will Produce More Metal Objects

The elephant in the room

This post follows on from the one above and takes a look at the videos resulting from the session on "metal detectors" that for some reason, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists decided to have at  their Leeds meeting (see above for the setting).

The first one we find online is a presentation "Where to detect? A review: metal detector surveys on developer-funded investigations"  by Stewart Bryant: https://youtu.be/KEUDRy4fQyk (13 mins)

Systematic metal detector surveys are increasingly being undertaken on archaeological investigations although their use is still relatively low and is confined largely to the south and east. This paper will briefly review metal detector surveys on developer-funded survey and excavation projects using the evidence of recent fieldwork together with the research and analysis of metal detector surveys undertaken by the Roman Rural Settlement Project. 

The presenter has basically taken the collaborative work 'The Rural Settlement of Roman Britain' (2016) and from it obtained information about (it seems), where metal detector use is taking place on commercial excavations. I must admit to feeling at a bit of a loss here. I work in Poland where metal detectors have been part of the archaeological toolkit since the 1990s - both in surveys as well as in excavations. I wrote critically [in Polish I suspect] on the way in which they were used in the latter back in the 1990s, if you please.  So what's this about?

Anyway, this seems to be a prime case to apply Flannery's "Mickey Mouse Laws" criticisms. He keeps going on about how the things he demonstrates are not surprising but they are "empirical"; it feels like we are back in the 1970s! It's a bit annoying that all he seems to be doing is reading from his own slides most of the time.

Dr Bryant seems to be saying that there are more metal finds and coins the larger area you dig, and that if you use a metal detector...  He shows that the size of commercial excavations across the country varies. He then argues that because sites in the north and west tend to be smaller than in the 'Home Counties', there are fewer metal objects from them, and so - he argues - the significance of the ones that are found is greater than further south and west.  A slide explains the 'impact of metal detector surveys on the recovery of coins' , and he notes that of all excavated Roman rural sites coins were found at only 44% of them (!) - but on 297 sites (8%), metal detector surveys had been carried out and of these 261 (88%) had produced coins (I suspect he means irrespective of its area).

What I am struggling to get to terms with is the underlying presumption that seems to be being expressed here, he gives the impression that the aim of doing rural archaeology" is to get coin assemblages.  He keeps going on about coins.

So he reckons that in certain areas of the UK, because the size of excavations is habitually smaller than the south and east, there needs to be more metal detecting on archaeological projects to get more metal objects (I'd say perhaps a general improvement of investigation methodology if they are missing so much material without a metal detector!).

But the aim of excavation is not to "get more finds", but to get information about the site (of which the artefactual content of the layers is only part). This is why I find the final comment a bit confusing.

"The question [of] responsible detectorists of "where to detect" could be  answered by 'in the north and west' where the relative archaeological significance of Roman metalwork recovered is arguably the highest"

It is not clear what this means. Does he mean these "responsible detectorists" should be knocking at the doors of all the commercial archaeology units and firms, museums and conservation bodies offering their services and references, so they can take part in archaeological projects? I hope that is what is meant. It is not clear however. He could also be saying that in collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record, targeting Roman sites in the north and west would lead to the recovery (and responsible recording) of lots more loose pieces of "relatively significant" Roman metalwork. The problems with this are (a) the sites would be depleted of those items before they could be excavated, (b) a great many sites in this area are presently under upland pasture where the Code of Best Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales (2017) prevents the responsible detectorist from hoiking objects out of the archaeological record, (c) many sites in these areas are sensitive to disturbance, and (d) if the metal objects in them are relatively significant on a national scale, should they be being decontextualised and disappearing into the hands and pockets of collectors anyway?

Reference: Brindle, T., Smith, A. T., Allen, M. G. and Fulford, M. (2016). The Rural Settlement of Roman Britain: New Visions of the Countryside of Roman Britain vol 1 Britannia Monograph series 29 (Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies) London.

Metal detecting at CIfA in Leeds (3) What is Lost through Artefact Hunting

This post follows on from the one above and takes a look at the videos resulting from the session on "metal detectors" that for some reason, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists decided to have at  their Leeds meeting (see above for the setting).

The second video seems on a similar pattern as the first. Vicky Nash talks about 'Using structured, supervised metal detecting surveys as a technique for investigating archaeological potential in commercial developments': https://youtu.be/aQI0SXB-ItA (21 mins)

Since 2010 the Cheshire Archaeology Planning Advisory Service have been requesting archaeological contractors with the support of local metal detecting clubs to undertake structured supervised metal detecting surveys on sites subject to planning applications. The aim of this survey is to assess the application areas potential for subsurface archaeological remains not identified by historical mapping. This approach has been used effectively on a number of sites, in some cases allowing the identification of particular locations which may require further investigation or concluding that the archaeological potential of an area has been addressed by the recovery and analysis of the plough soil assemblage. Using the work of the Cheshire Archaeology Planning Advisory Service as an example I hope to show how supervised metal detecting surveys have a valuable role to play within professional archaeological practice either alongside other techniques such as fieldwalking and geophysical survey or as a standalone approach. 

Here's another one that has the format of "me just reading the slides to you", but her texts are longer (you'll not miss a lot by turning the sound off and reading the slides at your own pace).  Again, this seems to be the Brits rediscovering the wheel, if you have a metal detector survey, you find more metal objects... and....? If you do it using archaeological methods, you get archaeologically useful results... Ummmm...

Ms Nash goes through one example, Congleton Road, Sandbach (here). Then goes through the (metal) "things found" and what they look like plotted on a plan (no mention of whether other finds were collected and plotted) She has a slide showing the "positives" of archaeological metal detector surveys:

I wonder how many CIfA members pointed out in the comments session afterwards that these are the very same negatives that are related to collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record with metal detectors. Vicky Nash shows here precisely what information is lost by unsystematic hoiking with minimal record, and what the scale of that loss is in the case of a single site. Hoiking the "finds" is one thing, what their position (mutual positions) tells us is another. the PAS records only the one, not the other. Indeed, look at the third point of her "negatives". This, actually is the key point that some of us have been hammering on and on about for years. metal detecting destroys sites:

There is no space here to consider some of the things she says about these slides - by this stage she is commenting more on the slides rather than just reading them. There are however a number of points she makes that should be considered by supporters (and detractors) of collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record. The presenter herself includes some in a slide called 'things to consider':

Here, one notices a pretty major disconnect between archaeology and the collector. The whole idea here is that volunteer artefact hunters spend hours and days systematically searching according to a regime finding stuff for the archaeologists. Who then throw lots of it away after they've done their stuff. Here I would like to see some discussion of the idea that stuff that is not retained for the project archive  instead of being discarded, is (the proper paperwork with the landowner having been completed) offered to the finder - or if not, why not. Involving collectors on a project requires addressing some of the issues collectors raise about what archaeologists do with artefacts - the traffic of "communication of values" cannot be just one way ("because we say so"). 

Metal detecting at CIfA in Leeds (4) The Past and Future of "Metal Detecting" in Scotland

This post follows on from the ones above and takes a look at the videos resulting from the session on "metal detectors" that for some reason, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists decided to have at  their Leeds meeting (see above for the setting).

The third one we find online is a presentation by Warren Bailie of 'The Current State of Hobbyist Metal Detecting in Scotland – Where do we go from here?; https://youtu.be/mOUlFpxcwuk (20 mins)

My paper would summarise the results of the recent research and reflect on the relationship between those who metal detect and the heritage professionals in the various areas across Scotland. The paper would look at where co-operation has led to mutual benefits and would also look at the techniques used for metal detecting survey. Ultimately a set of CIfA standards and guidance is required to ensure that the metal detecting surveys being carried out by Archaeological Units (whether employing skills from metal detecting groups/clubs or otherwise) are consistent, systematic in their approach, and are using appropriate equipment. More generally, the paper will highlight that work needs to be done to encourage closer working relationships between metal detecting clubs, groups and individuals and heritage professionals. 

It's a little bit rambling, the first five minutes is an introduction.  The talk is related to this project, and the 2016 publication resulting from it. In fact this is more or less a presentation of the book. Bailie estimates there are 520 detectorists, mostly older white men (14% women) but only about 313 were insured through the NCMD. In Scotland, the first metal detector find to be reported was in 1981, and it was only in 2010/11 that the first clubs were formed and metal detecting started to come out from underground with 300-400 finds being reported annually. But this includes items found by archaeologists too, so clearly there is massive under-reporting. In this talk Bailie sets out the negative results of the project's survey more starkly than in the 2016 volume (because those colleagues that present only positives are 'not painting the right picture'):

He then talks about heritage professionals' opinions about artefact hunting, noting that the negative assessments were "mainly from people that don't engage with detectorists" but noted that one who had in fact had no idea what was happening in the detecting community.

he then asks and answers, where do we go from here?

The first two are more 'rediscovery of the wheel' stuff.   But then the speaker makes the point that should be the most obvious from this session, ONLY the adoption of the same standards of action by "hobbyist metal detectorists' engaged in their collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record avoids damaging sites (point three in his slide). Anything else is simply looting. The final two are just the usual waffle. The 23 years of operation of the PAS that treats artefact hunters as collaborative partners shows the utter hopelessness of the pious wishes expressed in the last two points. Experience shows pious hopes that things will get better are not the way forward.

Metal detecting at CIfA in Leeds (5) PAS Head Making Metal Detecting Great Again

This post follows on from the ones above and takes a look at the videos resulting from the session on "metal detectors" that for some reason, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists decided to have at  their Leeds meeting (see above for the setting).

The original title of the next piece by Professor Michael Lewis (British Museum) was "Making Metal Detecting Great Again", but it was changed to a lamer: 'Advocating a more archaeologically minded approach to hobby metal- detecting'  https://youtu.be/8SZ5qoJAkhI  (19 mins). Here's the abstract:

For 20 years the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) has been working with the metal-detecting community. In that time great strides have been made, with large numbers of detectorists now willing to engage with archaeologists to record their finds and work alongside archaeologists in other ways. Also, has been [sic] developed a Code for Responsible Metal Detecting, outlining (for the first time) a base-line for best practice, and (through the HLF funded PASt Explorers project) a mechanism for detectorists and other people to be trained to record their own finds directly on the PAS database. However, it remains a frustration that many detectorists still refuse to engage with the PAS, seemingly happy to relish in the contribution of metal-detecting to our knowledge of the past but not actual [sic] add to knowledge themselves. This paper explored the dichotomy between those detectorists who are keen to contribute to archaeological knowledge and those that do not, and ask the question ‘what do archaeologists do about that?’

I'm not going to review this video now, watch it for yourselves if you can get past the embarrassing intro ... and the fact the guy is reading, head down from his notes all the time. The ending is weak, but does involve a stick and licencing.  I'll just add that, in the circumstances, it is extraordinarily ironic (and exhibits a huge lack of self-awareness) that it should be the head of the PAS saying: "fencing off a view and pretending it does not exist rarely solves anything". There I'm going to leave it for now.

Metal detecting at CIfA in Leeds (6) "This is just my Personal Opinion"

This post follows on from the ones above and takes a look at the videos resulting from the session on "metal detectors" that for some reason, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists decided to have at  their Leeds meeting (see above for the setting).

In the last video to be put online from this session, Toby Catchpole (Gloucestershire County Council) talks on 'Metal detecting and local authority archaeology services' https://youtu.be/msKmtnCclbQ (14 minutes). He however retitled it to 'metal detecting - a local authority archaeology service view', just to stress that these are my own comments. How sad that an archaeologist cannot express an archaeological view of these issues, but only saying what he - personally - thinks. 

Abstract:

After the core activities of development related advice, HER provision and agri-environment consultations, metal detecting is the most significant (and increasing) call on the time of archaeology service staff in Gloucestershire, not only the Finds Liaison Officer (FLO). It is also a major source of new archaeological information available to our HER, exceeded only by planning led commercial archaeology and aerial prospection (NMP projects). This paper will aim to highlight some of the issues that arise, such as the difficulty of funding and staffing emergency rescue excavations in a period of austerity, the increasing costs of managing and hosting FLOs, the negative impact of commercial rallies and their relationship with stewardship schemes, and also wider compatibility issues between PAS and HER datasets.

It will also attempt to stimulate debate regarding the use of detectors/ists more consistently in archaeological practice, what training might help, and ask whether the subject should actually be mentioned in revised CIfA Standards and Guidance documents.

No Viking finds from
Cotswolds on PAS database

Here's another one mumbling into his hand-held notes and the sound quality is not too good, which is a shame as he says some important things. He starts off with the usual "positives". But the tone starts shifting when talking about the PAS. One thing that emerges is that although he says they've got a lot of "responsible detectorists" in his region, slightly less than half of that information that is recorded is suitable for work with the HERs for planning assessments (some 5000 records from 23 years of the operation of PAS). Interestingly, Dr Catchpole suggests that some of the "data" offered to the PAS are simply false. He cites just one example of this, a findspot of "numerous" items of Viking material from a site in the Cotswolds that on investigation must be concluded to be false data. An expensive research project was conducted on a detectorist's say-so, and it turned out that the archaeologists had been misled about the findspot of the items concerned. This is one of my own earliest experiences with British metal detectorists, in the 1970s.

In the discussion of the real difficulties that attend organising excavations on findspots (citing an example of 'some cemetery somewhere' but on Higher Level Stewardship [!] land ), he mentions that one problem is that between excitedly digging something up and reporting it, metal detectorists quite frequently cannot remember which hole the finds came from (so, then, what value are any reports made to the FLO?). He gives an example showing how a 5/6th century burial had been trashed, because the detectorist did not recognise the nature of the sheet fragments he was recovering (but kept digging them up) and "threw them in the hedge". This would not be happening if the artefact hunter was trying to find information about the past and not merely things to collect.   Dr Catchpole points out how much the hidden costs or even a small intervention are, and "it's all public money".

Then he shifts to talking about commercial artefact hunting rallies.  The picture he paints has been well known to some of us who study and write about collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record in the UK, so it comes as a bit of a shock to observe that this speaker thinks he's telling his audience something that will be new to them (was it?).  He certainly tells them like it is. Here there is a discussion of the characteristics of the Stewardship Schemes, and their limitations.

Abusive detectorist haunts (geophys)

There is then a case study of one site that had been robbed by several rallies - though no finds were ever recorded from them.  When a survey was commissioned by the archaeologists, it showed how the rallies had stripped the surface artefacts from the site, destroying it. "The rallies only ceased when the landowner tried to introduce certain restrictions, and then local people concerned consequently started to receive the usual online abuse". Why should this be "usual" for an archaeologist dealing with archaeological matters?

What I think particularly disturbing is when you search the online documentation of the activities of the archaeology unit of this county council and the PAS database, you will not find the objects and sites discussed here by a simple search. They appear to have been hidden ... because.... "metal detectorists". How can these sites enter the literature and be part of the public heritage debate, if the bulk of the information is hidden, like the "Crazy Cressie's doggie hoard" at the head of this post, much discussed on this blog, and still nobody is saying where it was found, and I am disappointed that the speaker did not mention it and its fate.