Treasure Hunting a Lucrative Diversification

"For some farmers", says a vacant woman in a farming programme on the BBC, "metal detecting can be a lucrative diversification" (4:09 here). So can selling their daughters into prostitution, the NFU would recommend getting agreements on how to divide the cash in at least one of these cases.

See Heritage Action on this ('Yuk'). What is the BBC thinking of? No doubt the programme's producers will be getting a stiff letter from the PAS pointing out the irresponsibilty of propagating such an attitude to the archaeological heritage among farmers, of all people.

Does it Matter "How Deep" you Dig?

Focus on UK metal detecting: "It does not matter how far you dig"

Lenborough Hoard

What really happened? 

Monday, 22 December 2014: 'Christmas Dig Targets Known Site, Hoard Found but Quickly "Dealt Wiv".
Tuesday, 23 December 2014: 'Responsible Artefact Retrieval: Methodology makes all the Difference'

Tuesday, 23 December 2014: 'Lenborough Hoard: Hoiked on Sunday, Tipped Casually onto a Table the Next Day'
 

PAS: When and where WAS that Spinks Anglo-Frisian coin found?

Spink's Anglo-Frisian Coin: When and Where was it Found? 
 
 Focus on UK Metal Detecting: When and where WAS that Spinks Anglo-Frisian coin found?

PAS Reportedly say PACHI is a 'hindrance'

PAS Reportedly say PACHI is a 'hindrance':  PAS did you really say this about the blog: "http://paul-barford.blogspot.com", really? Explain please.

Is this recommended for artefact hunter 'partners'?

Monday, 1 December 2014: ' Focus on UK Metal Detecting: How to Check if its Real - Break it'

PAS Finally Try to Estimate Scale of Non-Reported MD Hoiking

Tuesday, 11 November 2014: 'PAS Finally Try to Estimate Scale of Non-Reported MD Hoiking (1), but Can't Even Manage to Present that Properly'

Readers of this blog will be well aware that I consider that the PAS are really pretty incapable of giving a transparent and nuanced account of the actual relationship of what they are "recording" to what artefact hunters are taking. I am among those who've been asking the PAS and its supporters about this for over a decade, getting fobbed-off and the question ignored all the time. How nice it was to actually see, after nearly two decades PAS-ing about, that they actually address this problem in their (rather superficial) Guide for Researchers produced as part of the Leverhulme Trust funded project 'The Portable. Antiquities Scheme as a tool for archaeological research'.  

To cut a long story short, in this document they give figures which more or less correspond with the Heritage Action Artefct Erosion Counter (dullard doubting detectorists and know-it-all-Florida-arts-graduates in denial please take note).

The only trouble is that when you try to check it out you come across more than a few problems for your seventeen million quid (plus a Leverhulme grant). So the project's Bland, Robbins and Pett start off with trying to say "how many detectorists' there might be (I am quoting below without the footnote numbers)...  

"Thomas suggests there are 12,500 detectorists; Barford believes there are around 9000 detectorists; whilst Heritage Action uses an estimate of 8000 detectorists. Based on all these figures there are (sic) ~9500 metal detector users across England and Wales. Of these only ~7125 detectorists are likely to recover finds that could be recorded by the PAS as it is thought that a quarter neverfind any 'recordable' artefacts" (Robbins 2014, 14)

So Robbins takes her ~7125 and multiplies it by a coefficient she determined from a questionnaire (where of course we can be sure that every respondent told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth irrespective of how they thought the results were going to be used) and comes to a figure of 260,000 objects hoiked a year. That's pretty close to the HAAEC's figures.   

That simple short passage however reveals that the PAS in all its Bloomsburian arrogance and carefree avoidance of the open debate of the issues simply does not give a tinkers. I'd say something like this needs copy-editing, and I'd say this has not been done. Just take a look at this:

1) The first figure Suzie Thomas's "12,500" is referenced by the document's author "Thomas 2010" with no page number. The bibliography tells us that we are being referred to Thomas, S. (2010), ‘The Relationships between Archaeologists and Metal-detector Users in England and Wales: Impact of the Past and Implications for the Future’, Ph.D. thesis (Newcastle University).... except the actual year on the title page of that work is 2009. Wrong reference, lack of page number -go back and check it. It gets more complex, searching the whole of Thomas's thesis (available online) does not reveal anything like the figures Robbins quotes in the garbled footnote 1 on page 14, where "England and Wles" and "the UK" are irretrievably mixed. The number of metal detecting clubs has gone up since 2009 (besides which 200 x 50 is not "10100"). Fail for PAS.

2) "Barford believes there are around 9000 detectorists [in England and Wales]", well no, no I do not. She gives a reference here to a blog post on this blog (Barford 2011) which the bibliography says is ... wait for it... the number of detectorists in AUSTRIA (see the difference?) and the number 9000 does not occur in it. This is the second WRONG REFERENCE in this passage. In fact this is not even a mistaken substitution of one interesting Barford blog post for another, I believe I am right in saying that nowhere in this whole blog (or I'll wager anything else I've written) does it say that I "believe" there are "9000 detectorists in England and Wales". Even if I said it, it's not what I now think. Looking at the way PAS reports of numbers of clubs and memberships are rising (and other factors), I believe the number of active metal detectorists  in England and Wales has increased over the past decade or so since I originally estimated the "8000" which is what I've since written here a number of times, but before Robbins put her text together.

3)  "Heritage Action uses an estimate of 8000 detectorists", but why Robbins (fn 3) gives a reference to "Barford 2008" here is beyond me. I am not "Heritage Action", I am not even a member of Heritage Action. She really ought to give a reference to Heritage Action's own material. The third bibliographical faux pas in the same sentence... not looking good. Nevertheless it should be pointed out that this "8000" used by HA is my "8000", I gave it  (and not 9000) to them. The figure comes from metal detector dealers and was lower than other estimates being used at the time.

4) This "quarter who never find anything" comes from Roger Bland. Whether that is the result of a proper survey or just a figure from the top of the Keeper's head remains unclear.

But let us see what eliminating the false "9000" does to Robbins' figures. In her text of the three estimates quoted, one is a phantom. This leaves us with two, the old 8000 and Suzy Thomas's (roughly contemporary 12500). The average is therefore ten thousand detectorists for England and Wales, not "9500". Getting rid of an (arbitrary?) 25% means we are discussing the effects of 7500 artefact hunters.

On present evidence, Robbins' figures, which are the best the PAS can come up with after eighteen years of outreach and seventeen million quid, would therefore indicate that 273750 artefacts are being hoiked by artefact hunters (750 daily). That works out as 4,452,750 non-Treasure finds hoiked since the beginning of the PAS.

While this is lower than the HAAEC estimate, it is the same order of magnitude. Let us compare that with the non-spun figures for the voluntary recording of artefacts by artefact hunters from the quantity they hoik for their collections or sale. The PAS claims "over a million finds recorded" but that number is boosting for publicity purposes with multi-thousand coin hoards (which are Treasure objects which it is mandatory to report - so have no relevance to the question the HAAEC is designed to address). If we are to assess the success, or lack of it, of the current voluntary recording scheme we need to remove these figures from the total. I did this a month and a half ago and we get Wednesday, 10 September 2014's total of 840,870 objects within 622, 356 records. Although the PAS has recorded a number of non-Treasure and Treasure finds since then, the general picture is not going to look much different from that represented here (see vignette above), with the Robbins total takings figure of 4,452,750 non-Treasure finds hoiked since the beginning of the PAS compared with the 840,870 objects actually recorded (though readers should know I consider the number of records to be more significant).

In other words, since the PAS was set up and started calling itself a "success" and all artefact hunters "responsible", its own figures reveal that less than one in four hoiked finds are being recorded, and an estimated total of  3 611 880 recordable finds have vanished into artefact hunters pockets and some ended up by now in skips without any kind of proper record.

If anyone wants to visualise that, using the 'chalk-line from Marble Arch up Edgeware road' model I adopted earlier for our own figures, the PAS estimate - at one centimetre per unrecorded find - would reach a kilometre beyond the site of the Boxmoor Roman villa on the northern outskirts of Hemel Hempstead.

Now whether Doubting Dullard Detectorists in Denial and others prefer the PAS's own figures or Heritage Action's is immaterial, there obviously is a very serious question to be addressed here. Let me make it easy for you, by how much would the PAS' own figures given in the 2014 research guidelines have to be wrong to make this situation in any way acceptable? 

20th Feb 2013: Ask an FLO

Nobody did this last year, why not have a go in 2013?  The suggestion was made (by a metal detectorist) that members of the public can phone up the PAS FLOs and ask them some questions. It is their job to answer them.

- Ask them about your doubts on artefact hunting and collecting.

- Ask them about "partnering" artefact hunters and collectors.

- Ask them what you can do to PROTECT the archaeological record from damage and erosion (is it "buy a metal detector' or "do not buy a metal detector"? Or is it something else?).

- Ask them for their realistic estimate of what proportion of metal detectorists are adhering fully to the Code of (Best) Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting, and how many reject it and abide by the two main rival ones.

- Ask them for a realistic estimate of the number of dugup finds not being reported  each year in the region.

- Ask them why you should be paying their salaries for "partnering" artefact hunters instead of doing something more effective to prevent the damage to sites and assemblages.

- Ask them whether they are concerned about the loss of information from the archaeological record by artefact hunting, or whether expressing such concerns is just "propaganda" (and if they say it is, ask them why they are doing that job if it is not to offset the loss of information).

- Ask them about their thoughts on the PAS policy of close collaboration with a commercial metal detecting magazine ("The Searcher"), and whether they subscribe to it or own a metal detector (or archaeological collection - and why/why not).

- Ask them why metal detectorists thinks you will hear abusive comments FROM ARCHAEOLOGISTS when one raises these topics.

 - Ask them if they LIKE working with metal detectorists.

Phone the FLOs, it is part of their "outreach" mission to answer your questions on portable antiquity collecting issues. 

Then post the answers you  get here as comments (with the name of the FLO please).

5th December 2012: How Much Money needed to Sort out Misconceptions?

.
How much extra money would the PAS like to sort out the misconceptions being disseminated about its role and function?

4th December 2012: What Kind of "Relationship"?

 Rob Middleton, 'Metal detectors plunder heritage site', Northampton Chronicle and Echo, 4 December 2012.

"these men are not out-and-out treasure robbers. They clearly had some sort of relationship with the local finds officer at the county council and their local archeological society.”

and what kind of "relationship" would that be? Would the PAS like to comment?

28th September 2012: Seeding the Record

To what extent are the PAS compiling at public expense a database full of false data caused by the constraints of being compiled in part in "partnership" with commercial organizations organizing artefact hunting rallies? 

 

A search of the PAS database reveals as many as 19 hits for "West Ilsley", a little place in Berks. The "heritage heroes" have been out there in force with their metal detectors it seems, indeed there was a "beginners dig" held there by 'Leisure Promotions' a while ago. The trouble is that the organizers announced that prior to this "we are going to be burying several hundreds of finds which will include Roman coins, hammered silver coins and masses of other coins and artefacts " (see here too). West Ilsley folks, the artificial archaeological site - and how many more have rally organizers seeding fields created, and (bearing in mind how important PAS attendance at rallies is considered for boosting record numbers) how many of those false findspots have got into the PAS record? 

Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Seeding the Record

19 September 2012: Question to the PAS About Commercial Artefact Hunting Rallies

Heritage Action wrote a text about the Polish artefact hunters' rally on Crown Estate land at Offley, Herts and published it in their online journal. The PAS Hertfordshire Finds Liaison Officer saw this text and added a comment saying he could put the preservationists' minds to rest because.... the finds were being recorded. He seems oblivious to the real point which was the propriety of holding a commercial artefact hunting rally at all when it results in the concentrated, but selective, erosion of the archaeological record.

So here is a question to the PAS generally, can the holding of erosive commercial artefact hunting rallies really be justified through the voluntary and selective recording of the "finds"?

Some PAS-Archaeology

.
Three recent posts providing some comments on the way the PAS does, and portrays, archaeology.

Human Sacrifice in a Leicestershire Field? Narrativising a Romano-British TOT-ring

Focus on UK Metal Detecting: The PAS and the Turbulent Priest

The BST Archaeology of the PAS

Awaiting some comments.
 
Vignette: Dot distribution mapper and ethnic narrativiser hero Gustav Kossinna.

8 September 2012: What Outreach on Discarding Evidence?

.
In a post on my main blog ("Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Archaeological Iron, Hedge Fodder or Discrimination") I discuss what artefact hunters are throwing away:

UKDN Member "Hawyoo" (Sep 02, 2012 10:33 am) asks: "What should i keep[?]":

Hi all.I find a lot of what some people may call junk.I seem to keep it all.Most is just rusty old iron but some of it looks interesting. [...] i am thinking they may just be a little something in there. 

Obviously most of us can see that among the iron objects taken by artefact hunters from archaeological sites will be a number of fragments of iron archaeological items, hardly "junk". One UKDN respondent however calls these artefacts "HedgeFodder (HF)" implying he just throws this sort of material into the hedges (interesting that some tekkies are concerned about contamination of the rural landscape with metal in contaminated Green Waste, while others are quite happy to litter the hedgerows with metal fragments produced by the hobby). Another member admonishes: "Firstly you shouldn't be digging rusty old iron should you? try a little discrimination". 

This is followed by a series of horror stories on what people have "pulled from the scrap bins". Including this one from a "Puffin" (Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:46 pm):

Even after 7 years, a few months ago I had to pull a Saxon/Viking 4 way strap divider out of my scrap bin. Many because of a post on here, you really need to be 120% sure of what you are weighing in! 

"Weighing in" of course is tekkie slang for what artefact hunters discard from their artefact collections and sell by weight for melting down for scrap. How many tens of thousands of archaeological items end up that way as a result of this hobby each year?

Of course anything that made its way into a tekkie scrap bin, but is pulled out weeks, months or years later because it is recognised to have been something of significance has by then irrevocably lost the information about its findspot.

Carried out in this way the hobby of artefact hunting is destroying vast quantities of archaeological information because many of these people which current UK policy lets loose to pillage archaeological sites to gratify their collecting hobby are ignorant (or careless) of just what it is they are finding and what information they should be observing, collecting and recording. Having a Portable Antiquities Scheme has not made the slightest dent on this problem.

Now, if the PAS was doing its job, it would be on the UKDN forum  like a shot to give an answer to the question posted there.

In answer to "what should I keep [when rummaging in the archaeological record for collectables]?" the only possible answer is, "every piece of archaeological evidence". Anything less is destruction, and if you do not know what is and what is not archaeological evidence, then leave the archaeological record well alone. Surely, in order to instil 'best practice', this is the point they should be making EVERY TIME this question arises in the practice of ten thousand people in fifteen years. Why aren't they?
.

7 September 2012: Do PAS Take Money from Artefact Hunters' Pockets?

.
There seems to be a potential problem in the manner in which the PAS publishes online the images of objects owned by somebody else ("UK Scheme Gives Away Detectorists' Money").  According to the UKDN forum, the PAS are quite happy to let others use their images free of charge for non-profit-making purposes ("They are happy not to be asked for permission to use them if no money is to be made by the user").

This raises the question of whether that applies to photographs supplied by self-recording detectorists. As we have seen, some of the latter count on being able to make 500 quid a photo of some very mundane finds. Obviously in such cases they are losing out if they make the same photos available to the PAS who then make no charge for their use. Even though most metal detectorists will claim to "not be interested in the money" it seems that this is an obvious mechanism which would reduce their willingness voluntarily to record such finds with the PAS when doing so puts them out of pocket.

 

6 September 2012: What is PAS Doing About Artefact 'Orphaning'?

.
Two recent threads on a metal detecting forum about an old detectorist who was in a 'sheltered residence' (old people's home) who'd given a heap of artefacts to a metal detectorist raised a number of questions. Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Carelessly Orphaning Artefacts :

Retired detectorist hands over some finds
by egon999 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:41 am 

similar story here:
 Veteran detectorist shares his finds

by egon999 » Wed May 30, 2012 3:00 pm 

In neither case is any mention made of handing over the information where each individual item came from, nor that the new owner is a bit concerned about this. Since the new owner is asking for help identifying them, I think we may fairly assume that they are not recorded on the PAS database (which would give that information).  Archaeological sites have been emptied of artefacts, no records made of what came from where, there is no possibility ever of marrying the "information" of a box or bag of loose archaeological artefacts and the archaeological contexts from which they came.  One "Clint" (Stansdad) muses: 

it does make you think what to do do with all the stuff we dig up when we are to old or ill to carry on detecting, what will happen to it, will anyone want it?

Not without any proper information they will not. Artefact hunters by their carelessness not keeping such information in a form which can be associated with each item have effectively "orphaned" them, as the collectors' terminology goes.

So, what is the Portable Antiquities Scheme doing to actively combat this problem?  Certainly not enough.

UPDATE 8.09.12
And the detectorists? Well, well what a surprise, following my links (which worked  when I wrote this post) brings you in both cases to:

"The requested topic does not exist".

What of course they mean is that they are pretending this issue does not exist. But pretending, censoring and deceiving does not make a problem go away. It just makes facing up to it all the more difficult.

5 September 2012: Finds From Nationally Important Sites in Private Hands

.
There are reports about the prosecution of a nighthawk in Suffolk ("More Criminals Caught with Metal Detectors"). Two metal detector users have admitted stealing coins and other artefacts from a protected Roman site in Baylham (Baylham Rare Breeds Farm), near Needham Market.  (Colin Adwent, 'Baylham: ‘Nighthawkers’ admit theft of Roman artefacts', East Anglian Daily Times, Wednesday, September 5, 2012). In a subsequent post ("Focus on Metal Detecting: Baylham Done Over") I discuss another aspect of this situation, from the discussion of the case on the detecting forums, it emerged that nighthawks are not the only people that can have material from nationally significant sites now protected by law in their hands. One detectorist (a  fertlingjohn ) comments [Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:31 pm]:

"Brings back memories in 1976 we had full permission from the then landowner a lovely site in those days the present law on scheduled sites was not in force" 

[Presumably he means the site was not then scheduled, because the laws were certainly in place PMB]. In 1976 however the site was already a known Roman site of importance. It has a good set of cropmarks, had produced all sorts of archaeological evidence in investigations. Here we have a clear case of the targeting of a known site of importance by metal detectorists.  How many other known sites in the region have similarly been done over since the mid-1970s?

Maybe some attempt should be made to track down  those who had permission to hunt for artefacts at sites of national importance (ie subsequently scheduled) and document what was taken from them?

2nd September 2012: Rally Finds Unreported?

.
A You Tube rally-flick made two years ago intended to convince people that "artefact hunters are not taking much out of the archaeological record" is worth revisiting ["Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Just Three More Years"] (warning: gratuitous stone-throwing scenes).

Add caption

My original remarks on this concerned the number of recordable finds made and the announcement that:

All finds have been recorded but will not be released to the PAS for 5 years at the landowners request.

This raises a number of questions, mentioned in my post. The Code of Responsible Detecting says that detecting without reporting to the PAS cannot be considered responsible detecting. Just three more years and two months to go.

There's now  under my original post an interesting comment by Nate Weizel about one of the finds (or was it one of the finds?) Apparently a silver annular brooch.


What steps are the PAS taking to make sure finds like this, bragged about in public media, are duly reported and recorded? 

28 August 2012: How Many Treasure Convictions?

In recent years there have been upwards of ten thousand artefact hunters out in the fields of the UK looking for Treasures. Some report them, others do not. Two years ago British authorities made an attempt to bring a case against one of them but it failed on appeal (' Two Years Ago: UK Treasure Convictions Down'). Has this discouraged them from making any more attempts? All sorts of things have gone through eBay.uk in the intervening weeks and months. How many charges have now been made?

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?