To: The Archaeology Forum taf@archaeologists.net
Dear Sirs,
It’s 4 years since we first wrote to you about the threat posed by the new deep-seeking metal detectors (with 24″+ depth range despite most plough soils being 9″). Any news on that? We hear there are now loads of them out there.
But this message is about something else. As you’ll be aware, despite many years of outreach the great majority of hoards are still being dug up hurriedly and damagingly. It seems to us that the problem could be solved pretty easily. Currently finders are entreated to leave the excavation to archaeologists and the following threat is made in The Treasure Act 1966 Code of Practice (2nd Revision) :
.
.
So it warns that if you deliberately or recklessly cause damage you’ll get less reward. Trouble is, it’s an empty threat as finders very frequently say the archaeologists couldn’t attend straight away so they had to hastily dig it up themselves as otherwise “nighthawks would have got it”. Thus they can persuade themselves, the coroner and the Treasure Valuation Panel that they “did the right thing” and therefore no reduction in their reward is warranted.
However it’s not the right thing. For several years we and Paul Barford have pointed out the obvious fact that there are numerous simple things finders could and should do to ensure finds are protected, including mounting guard, hiring a security firm and parking a heavy farm implement over the findspot. It seems to us they could be persuaded to adopt one or more such precautions by a very simple addition to the Code of Practice:
.
.
We think those 13 words would suddenly boost the level of “responsibility” and preserve much knowledge that’s currently being lost. Still more persuasion is all very well but it’s clear the low hanging fruit have long been plucked. In any case, in matters of morality a potential kick in the pocket always works best so would you please forward this email to the All Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group?
Many Thanks,
The Heritage Journal
info@heritageaction.org.uk
___________________________
Update 5 Jan 2015
This idea isn’t going down too well chez detectorists. “Historyman” (yes, that’s what I thought!) reckons: “The holier than thou brigade should provide this if they think it is so badly needed.”
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
04/01/2015 at 21:50
Peter
As citizen archiaologists we act with in the law we declare our finds and notify the relevant people FLO even when a hoard is found we can’t do no more than that.
We’re keep finding these fantastic hoards while your sitting on your hands, and if we don’t find them nobody else will and they will be lost forever.
05/01/2015 at 08:29
Paul Barford
“We can’t do no more than that” – that’s precisely what the Treasure Act Code of Practice says. Any ham-fisted attempt by poorly-prepared diggers, citizen archaeologists or not, to dig the thing up destroys information, which is why the Code of Practice states what it does.
The hoards which are found during archaeological excavations (Beau Street Bath, Williams and Griffins site Colchester just recently) are dealt with far better than the majority of the Treasure finds hoiked out by artefact hunters (no, collection driven exploitation of the archaeological resource is not “citizen archaeology” it is damaging erosion of the record). They also have a far better chance of getting published than the majority of metal detected ones.
The point is though that hoards buried deep in well-preserved, unthreatened stratified sites are not “lost”, they are preserved, awaiting an opportunity to yield information about the site they are part of. Simply hoiking them out as was the case at Lenborough and Holt is like wildlife conservationists cutting the heads off living rhinos saying they are “saving the horns from getting into the hands of poachers”. Just a nonsense. Which part of the word “conservation” do artefact hunters not understand?
05/01/2015 at 21:20
Peter
The retrieval of the coins was done under the supervision of the FLO who ,was not under any preasure, and could have stopped the recovery at anytime.
The choice of recovery was the FLOs , the finder ,the group all those that were there ,would have complied to any form of retrieval,even if it meant leaving it in the ground ,provided the site was left secure .
You don’t half go round the houses ,not interested in your. Rhino analogy, although they actually do cut horns of the poor beasts ,to stop them being poached ,but there heads are still attached to there bodies and there horns grow again , it’s. (compromise) you would do well to remember that word as its not used in your vocablory,or by those in your unelected self officiouse organisation.
06/01/2015 at 05:51
Archyfan
So let’s get this absolutely clear Peter, you are saying this method of retrieval was the FLO’s preference?
06/01/2015 at 06:36
Paul Barford
There was no pressure on the FLO and the group was amenable to leaving it situ for methodological archaeological examination? So why in the blazes was the FLO supervising the scooping out of the loose coins by the handful into a Sainsbury’s carrier bag to tip out en masse onto a kitchen table a few hours later? She should be promoting the Treasure Act Code of Practice, not flouting it and encouraging others to! If this is the case, what on earth was she thinking? I think, if this is the case, we all have the right to expect an official statement from the PAS over this.
06/01/2015 at 19:27
Peter perfect
Firstly the Local FLO who was familiar with the area carried out the retrieval of the coin hoard in an exemplary manor ,with the assistance of other citizen archaeologists..
The coins were taken to a safe location ,in a Sainsbury’s bags ,as Waitrose bags were not available at the time ,.incidently she was a he ,and better qualified than yourself .
06/01/2015 at 21:27
Paul Barford
“exemplary manor” an exemplar of what ?
07/01/2015 at 02:04
Paul Barford
Professor David Gill seems to be of a different opinion: “How to excavate and study a coin hoard” (http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2015/01/how-to-excavate-and-study-coin-hoard.html Approves of a soil block rather than supermarket carrier bags).
07/01/2015 at 09:58
Peter
Archaeologist Ros Tyrrell, the Finds Liaison Officer for Bucks, who is based at the Bucks County Museum in Aylesbury, was at the rally to record any finds made on the day, when the major hoard of more than 5,251½ Anglo Saxon silver coins was uncovered. Miss Tyrrell was immediately called over to help excavate the coins.
The bottom of the excavated hole was estimated to be two feet in depth .the top of the hoard before excavation was considerably less well in to the limited range of VLF and PI metal detetectors ,again well done to all those citizen archaeologists that were at the rally who acted very responsibly and to FLO ,and to our detractors ,Move On !,watch this space,and the next fabulouse find….
07/01/2015 at 12:07
Archyfan
Still waiting for an answer Peter. You are saying this method of retrieval was the FLO’s preference, not the detectorists’ one? Yes or no?