by Nigel Swift
The government is currently reviewing the workings of the Treasure Act. One thing they might decide to do is expand the definition of Treasure. The recent discovery of the Crosby Garrett Helmet, which falls outside the current definition, has convinced everyone that an expansion would be a good idea but there are also more controversial suggestions in the wind such as adding Roman base metal hoards and single finds of certain Roman and Anglo-Saxon coins to the list. Our pals the metal detectorists were incandescent at the latter idea on the grounds their grabfreedom would be deliberately eroded (which it would!) So maybe we should just let metal detectorists re-write the Treasure Act, to avoid them being upset about what they could and couldn’t flog for their own benefit? Or maybe not, let’s leave it to people that want to see auspicious artefacts end up in museums rather than in Kevin’s kitchen or Chuck’s condo. Bravo DCMS, expand the definition like blazes, do it for Britain not Brian!
Ah, but it’s not so simple! What about the cost? We’re already paying millions in “rewards” for what we believe is rightful national property, and the country is in financial crisis – how can we think of paying more? Clearly we can’t. So what’s the answer to this conundrum? How can we rescue more nationally significant items from EBay, Christies and the metal detecting heroes without paying more?
Well, a simple person like me might say legislate and educate the difficulty away – reduce or cancel the rewards and go back to the half-remembered good old days of my Cider-with-Rosie childhood when kids would find stuff in the fields and hand it in to the local museum because …well…because that’s where it belonged and thoughts of a reward simply didn’t arise. (What happened to those far off days and those kids? I know for sure none of them ended up on metal detecting forums because by the time they left the primary school every single one of them could spell far better than 90% of the metal detectorists that post on a lot of forums. Oh, what an outrageous claim to make – yet absolutely true. How did we get to this situation in this country? But I digress….)
No, things have changed. People with entirely different perceptions and characters are now in the fields searching electronically for that self-same stuff and I rather doubt they can be educated into the innocent, community-minded attitude of my erstwhile companions since whether they keep it or sell it matters little, the crux is that it’s no longer mainly a stumbleupon process in which the museum benefits, it’s an active search that mostly benefits the searcher alone. That’s why they search, whatever they say. So the “stuff” has become commodified – with all that entails: blue remembered hills echoing with acquisitive bleeps. And afterwards, cider with Delboy!
So I guess until Britain finally decides to legislate itself out of its position as the crass man of Europe the name of the game is coping – as it has been for many years now. (“The Portable Antiquities Coping Scheme” – wouldn’t that have been a controversial title, yet a deadly serious expression of what everyone saw it as at the time it was designed and launched. How come that “coping” purpose has been written out of the record and replaced with “partnership”? Do quangos have survival instincts? Does a rabbit hop?!)
Thus, for now, we can forget the good old days when finds were lucky for everyone not just someone. If we want it, we must pay for it:
“Simple innit? Darren absolutely MUST get paid for national treasure, one way or another, ‘cos he found it see? And he spent thousands of hours looking, and petrol’s expensive. And it’s the law and gawd help Britain if it thinks of changing that law. Which bit of that moral philosophising don’t you archies and heritage busybodies understand?”
And of course, that claim is hammered home with a threat, mouthed endlessly:
“if you want to see the stuff don’t even THINK of regulating the hobby or reducing the rewards or speaking ill of us or suggesting we mostly don’t report our finds else you’ll drive the hobby (not me, I’m a hero I am) you’ll drive the hobby underground.”
Shamefully, that same blackmail threat pay up or “human nature” will kick in and criminality will result” (not MY human nature matey nor that of most decent citizens I meet please note!) is cited by many archaeologists and hopping quangos in support of the current policy. “Liaison” (which is PAS-speak for “Kid gloves”) “is the only way else they’ll break the law.” Funny, we don’t “liaise” or “pay” in order to prevent burglary or parking on double yellow lines. So why can’t we stop being threatened and cowed by people that say their mates (not them) will make us suffer if we don’t do exactly what they say? One day, one day.
It’s a fact of British life for now then: the great majority of archaeologists pull their punches about “the hobby” and say in public (though not in the pub!) that the current official policy of engagement, despite being employed absolutely nowhere else on the planet, is the right one and is the best way to conserve the resource. In support, facts are hewn from fictions by sheer weight of repetition:
In particular, detectorists are fatuously portrayed as comprising only two types – nighthawks and non-nighthawks – with the latter, the majority, being described as responsible. Thus, thousands of press stories proclaim, ad nauseam, as if official spokespersons have a script (or maybe a memo?): “The great majority are responsible metal detectorists” – despite the indisputable evidence (ask PAS) that although most detectorists aren’t criminal nighthawks nevertheless most of them don’t report their finds to PAS and are therefore clearly irresponsible as measured against the official code and are to blame for a vast loss of knowledge (far, far, far more than nighthawks).
The British public are being misled (my lawyer asked me to say). Wow! What a claim! But you can check this out for yourself. Ask PAS, straight out, if their figures show most detectorists show all or even any finds to them.
In addition, try this: “responsible metal detectorists” gets you 4,150 Google hits, “irresponsible metal detectorists” gets you 158! How come?
One of that pitiful 158 hits is ex-Minister of Culture David Lammy no less and he illustrates what is going on perfectly:
“Of course there are irresponsible metal detectorists as well, and that has been a real problem with damage to our archaeological sites and the illicit sale of antiquities on auction websites.“
See? Implying “irresponsible metal detectorists” are criminals and a minority. Yet they are neither. They are the majority and despite not being criminals they cause far more damage than the criminals he chooses to highlight. The public should not be deliberately misinformed about this grievous, ongoing loss of the knowledge surrounding the bulk of 4 million artefacts since PAS was set up, and many hundreds more this very day.)
The moderator of one of the largest metal detecting forums recently posted:
“in the local PAS report for our county, it reported that only 32 detectorists recorded finds with the scheme, yet we know of well over 700 detectorists attended clubs throughout the year! [make of that statistic what you will!!]”
Why is it left to us (and Paul Barford) to highlight that sort of thing when it is invariable ignored by ministers, most archaeologists and PAS? Make of that observation what you will.
And of course, any speaking out that we do carries little weight. We are lay people, we neither go metal detecting nor practice as archaeologists, we are merely members of the public and as such are dismissed (by both detectorists and officialdom) as “poor trifling no accounts” as Huck Finn might say. And we’re not portrayed as merely irrelevant and wrong. No, we are said to be preventing (perhaps forever unless we shut up) the process of “liaison” – the triumphant march towards Castille Détente, that shimmering castle in the air where, by a mechanism yet to be explained, both grabbers and statutory guardians will find common ground in which grabbers will still grab and guardians will still guard and both sides will have reached an “understanding” under which the archaeological resource will be both grabbed and not grabbed and everyone will be happy.
It’s a big charge to lay against a heritage website, sabotaging national progress towards better curation of the nation’s archaeological resource – and it has been laid against us many times, not just by detectorists but by the head of PAS no less – so we don’t disregard it lightly. On the other hand, it’s a complete crock of spit – there IS no Castille Détente where taking and leaving are one. Is there Roger?! There ain’t no Ivory Tower where poachers and game wardens both get what they want. No, either the elephant has his tusks cut off or he doesn’t. He’s called Schrödinger’s Jumbo and we’re thinking of sending him along to the next PAS conference.
Berating us for pointing out there simply isn’t any valid “common ground” carries absolutely no weight with me, Wayne from Wolverhampton and Dr Bland from The British Museum. Put it this way, gents, in thirteen years no detectorist, no archaeologist and no Head of PAS has ever written down what the hoped-for common ground consists of. I know, because I’ve asked them to and they won’t respond. I’m not even an archaeologist see, just a poor trifling no account member of the public so that would be a good reason for not responding but that’s not the main reason is it? No, it’s that no metal detectorist would ever try to define Castille Détente because their hobby has kept clear of state regulation for thirteen years by going along with the idea that it exists and is a viable destination (and will for another hundred given the chance no doubt) and at the same time no member of PAS would try to define it as their organisation is too cute and knows that it can’t be done and that to publicise the fact would be to trip itself up while performing the Darwinian quango survival dance!
Or am I wrong? Go on, Dr Bland, write down which sections of the British archaeological resource you’re willing to sacrifice on behalf of the public in order to come to an agreement with metal detectorists and live in peace with them in Liaisonville. And write down what you want them to (and believe they will) give up doing before you are willing to say their hobby isn’t destructive in net terms. Put it on the front page of the PAS website next week with the headline Schrödinger’s Jumbo Captured!
Mumbo, Schrödinger’s Jumbo, with and without his tusks, on his way to the next Portable Antiquities Scheme conference.
For more Jumbo fun see Beyond the mumbo jumbo – Part 2
__________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
__________________________________________________________
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
03/10/2010 at 11:41
Gordon
What he said. With bells on.
06/10/2010 at 11:05
Facey Romford
Only in Great Britain do we allow private plundering; indeed, the enthusiastic support for such looting which the P.A.S. represents is a contemptible response to the requirements of the Valetta agreement. Look at how other countries manage such things (some of these might be a bit out-of-date):
AUSTRIA
The use of detectors requires excavation permission issued by the Austrian Federal Monument Authority. Such permission is generally not issued to private individuals.
CYPRUS
Searching for antiquities without a licence is expressly forbidden even with the landowner’s permission. It is highly unlikely that an individual will be able to obtain such a licence.
DENMARK
On public land, it is the community that decides whether or not a metal detector may be used. It is estimated that approximately 50% of the public land is closed to metal detecting. On public woodland the forest supervisor decides whether or not a detector may be used. In most cases permission is NOT granted. There is hardly any problem to search on public beaches . Apart from seeking permission of the landowner, there are no restrictions on private land. Any coins minted after the coin reform in the 19th century can be retained by the finder. Otherwise all coins and artifacts must be delivered to the National Museum. The finder is awarded a Cash sum for the find but it is always below the market value. It is very rare that the finder is allowed to keep his find.
FINLAND
All movable objects, such as coins, weapons, etc. over one hundred years old should be reported with an indication of context (Antiquities Act 1963, Section 16). This legislation does not rule out the use of metal detectors.
.
FRANCE
No one may use metal detecting equipment for the purpose of searching for monuments and objects which could concern prehistory, history, art or archaeology without first having obtained administrative authorization issued according to the qualification of the applicant and also the nature and method of searching. Beaches are believed to be outside this law.
GERMANY
Excavation requires a licence and work may not be carried out, without permission, near an antiquity in such a way as to affect it directly or indirectly. All accidental discoveries must be reported. Rewards are made equal to 50% of value if found on public land and 100% if on private land. Although metal detectors are not referred to in this 1932 Act, any items found by its use are covered by the Act.
SOUTHERN IRELAND
A person cannot use, or be in possession of a detection device in, or at the site of, an archaeologically significant area. It is even illegal to “Promote, whether by advertising or otherwise, the sale of use of detection devices for the purpose of searching for archaeological objects.”
ISRAEL
The Antiquities Act 1978, Section 9a states that “No person shall excavate in a private property for the purpose of discovering antiquities, nor search for antiquities in any other manner, including the use of metal detectors, nor gather antiquities unless he has received a licence for such from the Director. Breach of this section carries a liability in imprisonment for a term of 3 years or a very, very large fine.
Section 38 of the same Act states that “any person found on an antiquity site, in whose possession or in whose immediate vicinity are found excavation tools and it can be assumed that they were recently used in excavation work at the site, or in whose possession or in whose immediate vicinity is found a metal detector, is presumed to have intended to discover antiquities unless he proves that he has no such intention.
ITALY
The 1939 Act of the custody of artistic and historic objects affords protection to all objects and coins of historical or archaeological value including coins. All objects are State property and must be reported to the Superintendency of Arts. Rewards may be offered up to 1/4 of the value. Metal detecting is forbidden in the following areas:
Val D’Aosta
Toscana
Lazio
Calabria
Sicilia
Coins found minted after 1500 can be kept by the finder and 10% of their value has to be paid to the landowner.
LIECHTENSTEIN
The 1977 Monument Protection Act requires the declaration of any antiquities found in the soil. A government permit is necessary for archaeological excavations.
LUXEMBOURG
All search and excavations with the aim of discovery or bringing to light objects or sites of historical interest can only be made with the authorization of the Minister for Arts and Sciences. The use of metal detecting for unauthorized searching is, in the view of the Ministry of Justice, in contravention of the law.
MALTA
The 1925 – 1974 Antiquities Protection Act affords protection to all objects, both movable and immovable, which are more than 50 years old. Excavation can only be carried out with government authorization. The reporting of accidental finds is compulsory. Since 1979 there has been a ban on the import of any metal detectors of sufficient sensitivity to be of any danger to archaeological sites.
NORWAY
The Cultural Heritage Act 1978 lists a wide range of specified objects, both fixed and movable, dating from before 1937 which are protected. It also provides protection from unauthorized excavation. The ownership of all objects older that 1537 and of coins older than 1650 is vested in the state. It requires that all finds should be reported to the authorities who will fix a suitable reward. There is no specific reference to metal detectors.
SPAIN
The use of metal detectors is not allowed unless an import license for the detector has previously been issued. Further enquiries should be made to the Spanish Commercial Office. The Commercial Office at the Spanish Embassy provided the following written information: 1. The use of metal detectors could involve considerations of the Law and Regulations governing artistic or archaeological finds, involving national heritage and treasure trove, a provided by the very detailed Law of 25th June 1985 (Historical Heritage); and the Royal Decree of 10th January 1986 which develops it. 2. If anything is found, therefore, it would be necessary to comply with the complex procedures outlined in these enactments; and it would certainly not be possible for any finds to be taken out of Spain until the proper Authorities had given their consent. That could take months; and if the article in question is classified as part of the national artistic heritage, and/or is over 100 years old, it is not likely to receive an export permit either at all, or for a very long time, owing to the complexity of the procedures. The second aspect is a technical one. The Royal Decree of 25 November 1987, which deals with nuclear energy and radioactivity, lays down rules and safeguards against radiation. The Order of 20th March 1975 sets out the homologation rules for radio-active apparatus. The metal detector in question may not comply with those rules. There is a third aspect. The local Naval Authorities have been known to complain because the use of metal detectors has interfered with electronic communications. All in all, therefore, it is preferable not to use metal detectors in Spain.
In 2001 Spain has become even more un-bending and a number of detector users have faced prosecution, therefore FID cannot recommend visiting or detecting in this country.
SWEDEN
Section 19 of the 1988 Act which prohibited metal detecting in the countries of Gotland and Oland has now been extended to include all of Sweden.
SWITZERLAND
No legislation specifically refers to metal detecting by private individuals, though legislation exists to ban unauthorized search or excavation of antiquities.
TURKEY
The 1973 Antiquities Act carries very extensive lists of movable and immovable objects protected including places of ancient settlement or places where there are vestiges of ancient civilizations. All objects are the property of the State and reporting is obligatory but a reward system exists. There is a specific provision against treasure hunting, illicit excavation and dealing in antiquities. Unauthorized treasure hunting carries a penalty of 2 – 5 years imprisonment and very hefty fines.
09/10/2010 at 18:16
Amanda
It’s not just our history being plundered. Fossil hunting is another big money spinner. Important fossils are sold for a fortune and shoved in someone’s private collection where paleontologists and the public have no access to them. They therefore do not get studied and all of us are denied the chance to learn more. The same goes for meteorites. There are people out there who hunt for meteorites, not to further science but to make a profit. Rare plants and animals are on the list of stuff to sell for a quick buck. When rare Orchids are found growing in this country the site is kept secret otherwise the site would be stripped by Orchid collectors. Even caves are not safe. They are being stripped of their Stalactites and other formations by some cavers who then sell them.
Nothing is safe from the greed of these people.
I’m fed up of hearing about people doing this because they have to make a living as we are in a recession. Rubbish. I don’t earn a lot but I don’t go out and plunder to make some extra cash.
01/03/2011 at 22:02
kevin
If it wasn’t for metal detectorists your knowledge of history would be seriously dented !!!
02/03/2011 at 03:18
Pat
It isn’t the knowledge they reveal it’s what they don’t (and therefore destroy) that is the problem. Why is that simple reality so hard for most detectorists to grasp, despite the millions spent trying to explain it to them?