24 August 2012: The Significance of Glasgow's New Definition of "Nighthawking"

.
One of the benefits for the pro-collecting lobby in the use of terms like "nighthawking"  (as in "we are not nighthawks, nighthawks are not bona fide metal detectorists") is that the term is so vague. We recall explanations like the classic "I'm notta night'awk cuz I go out in the day" and so on. For the past few weeks in the UK there has been a counterpart to the Portable Antiquities Scheme in the public debate about portable antiquities. Glasgow University's "Trafficking Culture" project. This has recently produced a new definition of "nighthawking" ('UK Metal Detecting Under the Microscope: The Significance of Glasgow's New Definition of "Nighthawking"). One of the four definitions jives perfectly with what Heritage Action have been saying for a long while about finders' agreements etc all along. According to this new definition, among other things, a metal detectorist is guilty of nighthawking when they have:

• Searched on private land with permission from the landowner, but then failed to disclose what was found, especially items of financial value or items of Treasure, constituting theft from the landowner and/or the Crown.

I think quite notable the differences in the UK codes of ethics/practice/conduct on this point. While the Official Code says: "Report[..] any finds to the relevant landowner/occupier", the one most tekkies adhere to - the NCMD one - says "Report all unusual historical finds to the landowner". The FID code is a cracker "Report all your finds to the landowner, even those that must be declared to the Coroner as well" (surely it is primarily the planned removal from their property of potential Treasure finds of  which the landowner must be appraised from the earliest moment!). How often, though, does it happen that tekkies get blanket permission (in writing say) to turn up on remote fields whenever they want, do some artefact collection, and take the stuff home without showing how many buckles, hobnails and Roman grots and pieces of lead they've taken each time? How many after detecting then seek out the farmer, perhaps engaged in activities the other side of an extensive farm? Or drop in at the farmhouse each time to say 'thank you' and lay out their finds? How often does "wellying" take place (showing the farmer the finds in the finds pouch when leaving the field, but avoiding showing him the find concealed about the person - here metaphorically dropped down the top of a wellington boot)? Never happens even though the practice has a name?  

Basically what this is saying is that anyone, whether or not they have an agreement with the farmer, who leaves the site of a bout of metal detecting without showing the farmer exactly what they are taking is a nighthawk. Obviously in the light of such a definition, to make everything clear, it would make sense for the finder to get some kind of itemised release form signed at the end of each search. That would then sort out problems about on whose land something which subsequently is sold on eBay or to a dealer was actually found, whether it was licitly obtained, or was 'nighthawked' according to the new broader definition now being proposed by the Glasgow team. Obviously a find being sold on the open market in the UK which has no release form signed by a landowner that he has seen the object and approves its removal from his land is, by the new proposed definition, potentially nighthawked.  A finder wishing in any way to profit from the exhibition, lending or commercial use of such items would have to show such a form for each of them in order to prove they were not nighthawked. This new definition from Glasgow indeed makes the differentiation of licit from illicit finds in the UK (English and Welsh primarily) context much more precise. 

Does the Portable Antiquities Scheme fully endorse this definition? 

August 18th 2012: Archaeological Asset Stripping in Cambridge

.
In two posts on another blog:

Detecting Under the Microscope: Eleven Rings from Avebury
and
Metal Detecting Under the Microscope: Vandalising Artefacts

I describe how I was alerted to an eBay seller of dug-up artefacts by a reader (who coincidentally also happens to be a pal from Heritage Action) who was doing some Internet trawling (or is that "trolling", eh, BM?). The name of this Cambridge-based internet dugup antiquity seller is "decorativehandpainted2010". The first post discusses eleven quite clearly metal detected objects all for sale by this individual, and all stated to be from Avebury.
The second post describes what this seller is doing to metal detected archaeological artefacts. Items such as this 'Stunning Medieval Bronze Ring Cleaned &  Polished'. "Stunning" is not a word I would use, but certainly "cleaned and polished" it is, so much so you can see the seller's reflection in it and it's not a pretty sight.  

Polished at my local jewellers with a jewellery polishing machine. Bright. Circa 15th century AD. Found in Eynsham,Oxfordshire. Lovely condition. Inner diameter 19mm. Ref 2003.

Funnily enough in the PAS notes for conservation of finds made by "members of the public", no mention is made of the use of a "jewellery polishing machine". I doubt whether there are many archaeological conservators trained in their use. If you look at this sellers current offering of 126 antiquities on sale, 79 are brought up be searching the description for the word "polished", and only 25 for the word patina (five of those refer to all traces of patina REMOVED). This seller has transformed the artefacts he is selling into glittering geegaws. Glittering wearable trophy geegaws for showing off  ("Oh that? Yes'it's quite unusual, isn't it? Medieval you know, isn't it just so cute?"). But that is not all this (Cambridge?) jeweller can do to ancient artefacts, oh no! Read the original post.

Once again, is Britain's Portable Antiquities Scheme going to take an interest in any of this and take a stand against this kind of treatment of archaeological material? Don't hold your breath.

17th August 2012: Does the PAS Accept we are an -Ology?

Archaeology - An -ology not Hoikery

.

See here.

So, how about somebody now redesigning the PAS logo to bring that out?

9th August 2012: DIY Best Practice Guide

.

Concerned about the damage to the reputation of their hobby, a UK metal detectorists' forum has attempted to fill the gap with what the CBA and PAS between them could not manage to cough up in association with their television "Secret Treasures" show: UKDN "Britain's Secret Treasures" Beginners' Guide. This starts off rather inauspiciously:

With the long awaited start of the detecting season coinciding with the Britain’s Secret Treasures ITV programme we can expect a rush of people joining the hobby, if that programme has not wetted (sic) peoples (sic) appetites to detect[,] then nothing will. Well done to the finders of all those Treasures for unearthing our past, filling our Museums with tourists, raising the Nations (sic) esteem and to the Portable Antiquities Scheme for all their hard work in their outreach, recording, conserving, researching and on occasion getting down to earth excavating the hoards. 

There's clearly been lots of value in those fifteen million pounds worth of outreach if the result of their involvement in a TV programme results in a "rush of people joining the [site-depleting artefact hunting] hobby"!  This 25 page guide is obviously well-intentioned, but it is a shame that it was not consulted with their PAS "partners" and elsewhere.  Where was the PAS version? 

  

BST: Beginners' Guide to Artefact Hunting

.

 

May 18th 2012: Why No "Outreach" about "Metal Detecting" Magazines?

Heritage Action refers to a post of mine where I highlighted the contents of the June 2012 number of “The Searcher” magazine "which of course show, in a way that cuts through all the comforting platitudes from PAS and the Culture secretary like a knife, just how money-oriented every one of the suppliers and (what must be) a massive number of the exponents of metal detecting are". I pointed out that it is “worth popping along to the local newsagent’s and getting a copy, just to see what these people get up to, what they think is worth talking about, and what they do not”. As Heritage Action points out, though PAS is currently heavily involved in the organization of the magazine's "Best find" competition, PAS is nowhere on its website as part of its "outreach" urging members of the public to use the magazine to find out "what these people get up to, what they think is worth talking about, and what they do not”. Or join any metal detecting forum. Why not, if they see what their "partners" as doing as some form of amateur archaeology? Could it be that PAS is actually aware that it is not true, and that closer familiarity with what metal detectorists do in England and Wales would show that to be the case? Why do the PAS apparently consider it unnecessary for members of the public to find out for themselves what "metal detecting" is actually about?

May 4th 2012: Why is there no Bibliography on Artefact Hunting and the Antiquities Market?

I wonder why there is no reading list on "portable antiquity issues" for public benefit on the PAS website? A text called "Congenial Bedfellows? The Academy and the Antiquities Trade" points out that not only has the role of "facilitating actions of academic experts" previously been overlooked in studying the antiquities trade (and here the PAS certainly is a prime culprit). It argues that "academic expertise is indispensable for the efficient functioning of the trade" and suggests that:

a knowledge-based ethical environment for academic practice would allow scholars to make more informed choices about the propriety or otherwise of their involvement with the trade.

I would broaden that to "with artefact hunting" as the two are inextricably related. In such a situation, is it not a hindrance that Britain's mega-million public funded outreach Scheme for dealing with portable antiquities issues does not have on its website a section where the public who pay for it can find information on the issues surrounding collecting of archaeological artefacts? A search of this "resource" will not bring up even a smidgen of information for the general public who pay for it can find information on the issues surrounding collecting of archaeological artefacts (except the section on "how to buy antiquities"). Where is the bibliography containing the link to that article? Nowhere. The PAS do not consider it part of their 14-million-quid outreach to provide such a basic piece of information even as a few dozen bibliographic references, so if the PAS is not going to do it in Britain, who is? (see the 1970 UNESCO Convention article 10).

On what basis are archaeologists at present in Britain making their decisions to make more informed choices about the propriety or otherwise of their involvement with artefact hunting and the trade? Certainly, I would suggest, nothing balanced coming from the PAS. the latter just present one side (the 'propaganda of [their own] success') of the story.

Where, after fourteen years of so-called "outreach" and fourteen million pounds of public money thrown at it  is the PAS bibliography of  Portable Antiquity Collecting ISSUES?

Apr-01 2012: Why are there no Reports for When the PAS gets out in the Field?

While it seems a bit pointless asking this too.... If it wanted researchers to be able to understand the biases inherent in the records they create, why does the Portable Antiquities Scheme not write reports for each commercial artefact hunting rally they attend? Such a report would set out the various factors which will affect the information acquired (precise boundaries of area searched, intensity of activity across different parts of the areas), what is likely to have been missed (or simply walked-off with without recording), and most importantly reflecting on the state of what is left of the archaeological record at that spot when they leave. That's how to allow researchers using their records as a source of information can learn what biases may have been introduced by the way the information was collected in each individual case, and only that will allow them to use that information in any form of analysis more sophisticated than a simple and crudely macro-scale presence-absence-here dot-distribution map.