You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Metal detecting’ category.

It’s a great story, much publicised. 913 gold sovereigns found hidden in a piano. Plus, all concerned acted impeccably. The finder said it “would not have been right or proper” to keep it secret and the previous owners said they were “very happy” the money was going to the college and would benefit the pupils. Compare the almost identical “Twinstead Hoard”. As the Mirror put it:

Metal  detector enthusiasts on a charity day ended up in a brawl after 300 sovereigns worth £75,000 were found in a field. They then ran off with the loot – half of which belonged to the farmer who owns the land – instead of declaring it under treasure laws. One enthusiast said: “The find was made by someone inexperienced who started yelling about a gold coin. Soon there were about 100 individuals digging. It was out of hand. Metal detecting is a cut-throat world. Only two of the 300 coins were in the finds box at the end of the day.”

Unlike the Piano Hoard, PAS played Twinstead down, as did the police. The officer dealing with it, a detectorist himself wrote to the attendees saying “All I want is for the entire hoard to be declared, a decent article in the Searcher and the reputation of us detectorists to be restored. All I want is a sensible resolution to the whole situation. Please feel free to contact me. I am your friend not your enemy”. But 2 weeks later at least 100 known-about coins, £35,000-worth (and heaven knows how many others) had still not been returned. A while back we asked for an update: Any more returned? Anyone prosecuted? But he replied “Can I ask who you are and why do you want this information?” and then “As you were not involved in the initial incident I suggest you submit a FOI request through our HQ, the route these sort of enquires normally go.”

Strange, isn’t it? In Bonkers Britain PAS garners oodles of news coverage from one hoard yet they (and the police) downplay mass theft of an extremely similar one. Such is the consequence of setting up a quango whose sole survival chances depend on pretending that buying a £10 ticket to a detecting rally transforms totally random people into “citizen archaeologists” with immaculate morals.

.

PAS Training course, day one.

.

__________________________________________

.
.
__________________________________________

[For more on Dr Hardy’s conclusions put “Sam Hardy” in our search box].

Dr Sam Hardy has concluded laissez-faire applied to metal detecting simply doesn’t work (see here). But the question is WHY? The answer has been voiced for some years by other independent academics:

5 years ago Suzie Thomas of the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research wrote (in Portable antiquities: archaeology, collecting, metal detecting) that there is:

an ongoing ‘elephant in the room’ – the fact that archaeologists and metal-detector users view the issues differently” and that “as long as they [detectorists]  “engage in a hobby that has a direct effect on the physical remains of the past, they too have a responsibility to record their finds openly and honestly, and to a standard acceptable and useful to archaeological research.”

Also at about the same time another independent academic, John Carman of the University of Birmingham’s Institute of Archaeology, wrote (in Stories We Tell: Myths at the Heart of “Community Archaeology” )  :

But in the end all we can do is talk to those who already speak in our language and share our values. …….. For us to alter our behaviour to accommodate the excluded—by changing what we do—will mean that we will cease to be archaeologists. For them to change to accommodate us will mean they lose their own sense of who they are. As archaeologists we can do nothing about this because we would cease to be archaeologists if we did.

Those two explanations are as embarrassing for supporters of the status quo as Dr Hardy’s conclusions are, for they imply that if just “the willing” were involved – people like Heritage Action members, amateur archaeologists and truly responsible detectorists – the Portable Antiquities Scheme would work like a dream, with virtually 100% co-operation instead of the current derisory percentage. To put it politely, PAS’s figures are loud testament to the fact the vast majority of detectorists don’t see community knowledge gathering as a duty.

It is to be hoped The Establishment, and in particular the All Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group, reads both the above explanations in conjuction with Dr Hardy’s paper. Together, they form a powerful condemnation of the way Britain treats its buried archaeological resource.

__________________________________________

.
.
__________________________________________

[For more on Dr Hardy’s conclusions put “Sam Hardy” in our search box].

Dr Hardy’s two metal detecting propositions – that “laissez faire” doesn’t work and that over 92% of British recordable detecting finds may be being lost to science – can surely not be ignored, they are far too consequential for that. We certainly feel vindicated. Dr Bland, previous head of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, once said our Erosion Counter “lacks credibility” but now a respected independent academic has implied its figures should be three times higher!

But will The Establishment ignore him? Probably, just like they ignored Prof. Gill’s famous question: “by how much would it [the Counter] need to be wrong to make the losses acceptable?” They could have said 50%, 20% or 10%, but they stayed silent. Now Dr Hardy is implying the losses are actually 300% higher than the Counter proposes and that 92% of finds are being lost to science.** Oh, and that laissez faire systems like Britain’s simply don’t work!

So what should happen next? We think DCMS, APPAG, CBA, NFU, CLA and every single landowner should be made aware of Dr Hardy’s two bombshells. It’s high time, after 20 years, that the portable antiquities of Britain should be treated like those beyond our shores and no longer be victims of fake news. Inertia and a quango’s survival instinct are clearly serving us ill.

.
** Based on the Counter’s cautious estimate that each detectorist finds only 0.69 recordable artefacts per week. If in fact they find 1.5 per week then it would mean more than 99% of them are being lost to science – a ludicrous basis upon which to hail British laissez faire as a success.

.


.

.

__________________________________________

.
.
__________________________________________

[For more on Dr Hardy’s conclusions put “Sam Hardy” in our search box].

Two weeks ago we highlighted a bombshell from Sam Hardy of UCL, the fact that laissez faire regimes don’t reduce metal detecting damage, only regulation does. But there’s more….. Both PAS and we have long assumed there are about 8,000 licit detectorists but he has concluded there are 24,300, three times more. If so, our Erosion Counter is massively understated and the 72,000 finds recorded by PAS each year is a very low proportion of what is found with 9 out of 10 detecting finds in Britain being lost to science.

It is to be hoped that a copy of his paper has found its way to the All Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group. We hope that something else will find its way to them as well: we intend to add the following to our Erosion Counter, some revised figures based on Dr Hardy’s estimate of detectorist numbers. Is it all too shocking to be true? Don’t blame us, we have been saying things are only one third as bad…..

.

Based on Dr Sam Hardy’s estimate, a running total of the number of recordable archaeological artefacts removed from the fields of England and Wales by metal detectorists (92% without being reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme).
Total per day: 2,385
So far this year: 216,500

Since the start of the Portable Antiquities Scheme: 17,664,000
Total since 1975: 38,250,000

.

__________________________________________

.
.
__________________________________________

[For more on Dr Hardy’s conclusions put “Sam Hardy” in our search box]

Dr Sam Hardy’s recent Europe-wide study of metal detecting was unequivocal: permissive regulation does not minimise cultural damage whereas restrictive or prohibitive regulation does. So much for decades of contrary British claims. So it’s unfortunate there’s a lobby group dedicated to spreading Britain’s laissez faire system throughout Europe and it now plans a large conference in Norwich to further that aim.

Bizarrely it will be held at a publicly financed museum and may be addressed (again!) by the publicly financed Michael Lewis of the PAS. Worse, it includes “a 3 day international detecting rally” (for £45 a head) at which hundreds of people from Bulgaria, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, France, Denmark, Croatia, Spain and Ireland will help themselves to British history and take it  home or sell it.

NB though, Michael Lewis and the museum staff will not be detecting. Their professional codes prohibit it and for 20 years archaeologists have avoided being photographed doing it (it’s a big internet Dear Reader, we challenge you to find any such image!) That says it all about Britain’s laissez faire system: professionals publicly supporting what they privately don’t. Why try to impose it on Europe?

Honest Archie, doing Europe a favour.

.

__________________________________________

.
.
__________________________________________

[For more on Dr Hardy’s conclusions put “Sam Hardy” in our search box].

.

.

Dr Sam Hardy of the UCL Institute of Archaeology (above) has produced a detailed study of metal detecting. There is much in it to be discussed but today we highlight his central conclusion. Having examined detecting in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England, Wales, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and the US  he finds that:

“permissive regulation is ineffective in minimising harm to heritage assets, whether in the form of licit misbehaviour or criminal damage. Restrictive and prohibitive regulation appear to be more effective, insofar as there is less overall loss of archaeological evidence.”

This flies in the face of the two justifications cited for 20 years in support of Britain’s laissez faire system – that nighthawking is lessened by it and that licit misbehaviour is lessened by it. Dr Hardy’s conclusions are unequivocal: both claims are false. It is to be hoped that his report will find its way to both Whitehall and the All Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group without delay. This is surely the strongest evidence so far that Britain has taken a wrong path.

__________________________________________

.
.
__________________________________________

“Heritage Watch” has just published the standard definition of Heritage Crime in which the only reference to metal detecting is “unauthorised excavation and metal detecting (also known as night hawking)” thereby obscuring the reality.  The commonest (and most damaging) heritage crime relating to metal detecting is surely telling a farmer you took finds home without showing him as they were of no value when they were – and then covering your tracks by not reporting it to PAS.

.

Lest anyone thinks that’s not a heritage crime here are the bits from the Heritage Watch definition that fit it like a glove:
“any offence which targets the historic environment”
“crimes against cultural property”
“anti-social behaviour”
“metal theft”
and “theft of historical and cultural property”
(to which you could add  fraud and obtaining money under false pretences.)

.

Lest anyone thinks it’s not widespread, this question hangs in the air: why does almost every finds agreement (including the “model” ones offered by the detecting bodies) fail to contain this simple, respectable clause: “I the detectorist will take nothing home without first showing it to the landowner”. It’s time Britain woke up. (Or more accurately, stopped pretending it’s not happening.)

.

__________________________________________

.
.
__________________________________________

Dear Fellow Landowners,

Take a look at this!

  • “I bumped into the land owner a few months ago and he asked me what I did with my finds , did I sell them he asked . He offered to buy a small collection from his land , my reply was that he is very welcome to have a collection. Over the months I have been thinking what I could put in a display and have been putting a few finds to one side for him.”
  • “First class effort , landowner should be pleased as punch.”
  • “A very nice and considerate gesture”

What can one say? The finds are his not theirs. Imagine if all the money spent on PAS to support such people was spent on promoting amateur archaeology or environmental improvement or just donated to a cat’s home!

Regards

Silas Brown,
Grunters Hollow,
Worfield,
Salop

A detectorist has asked on a forum whether there are rules for sharing finds with farmers and been told “There isn’t no hard and fast rules“.

However, in the rational, well-behaved world inhabited by ramblers, amateur archaeologists and everyone else, there IS a hard and fast rule.The finds should be handed to the farmer as they are his. How hard is that to understand? The farmer can then get independent advice on their significance and value and then, only then, he can decide if he wants to reward the finder. 

Any other arrangement is a blatantly unfair contract for it puts the detectorist at an unfair advantage in which he alone knows the value of the finds. Only an oik or a crook would do that yet that “no hard and fast rules” situation is supported by both the National Council for Metal Detecting and the Portable Antiquities Scheme by omitting to explain and to specify a fair contract. (The NCMD do it because detectorists want it that way and PAS do it for the same reason. But PAS are supposed to be respectable! What’s happening?)

.

“Don’t worry Farmer Giles I’ll take the cards home and let you know if you’ve won”

.

ps.

pps

__________________________________________

.
.
__________________________________________

Researchers at Newcastle University have highlighted how illegal levels of metallic waste spread on fields damages heritage by obscuring geophysical surveys. To this end the university has  issued an  app for the public to report it when it is seen so that a geographical database can be built up. So if you are walking along the road or a public footpath and you see something like this please use the app to report it.

green-waste

You’d think that detectorists (who’ve been running a furious campaign against green waste on the grounds it reduces their ability to hunt artefacts) would be mad keen to use it, but no, they’re all terrified if they report it the farmers will sling them off their land: Here are some disgraceful but genuine quotes:

“I am just hoping the detecting community will see sense before they embark on a mission of “DOBBING UP” our most valuable supporters”
“the App is an outrage to common decency”
“Pressing the button on the app, is equivalent to pressing the self destruct button on your detector!”
“Lets just hope that farmers dont get wind of the app, or details appear in Farmers Weekly”
“The danger is that farmers find out it exists”

Needless to say, those alleged friends of heritage, the National Council for Metal Detecting have advised members not to use the App unless the farmer has given permission. Compare and contrast a similar App launched by the Ramblers Association. But then, ramblers are a different breed. They’re not on the land to take stuff for themselves.  As for “Lets just hope that farmers dont get wind of the app” we hope they do. If you know any farmers we suggest you tell them!

.

__________________________________________

.
.
__________________________________________

Archives

June 2017
S M T W T F S
« May    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Follow Us

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Facebook

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,432 other followers

Twitter Feed

%d bloggers like this: