Crosby Garrett Excavations 2011

.
The Crosby Garrett helmet was discovered by metal detectorists last year. After much cajoling the anonymous finder or finders was/were persuaded to admit where it had been found. Apparently FLOs visiting the site saw an "infilled hole" which they were told had been the findspot. An excavation was promised, so that we could all learn about the context of deposition of this Nationally-Important-Shiny-Stuff-That-Is-Not-A-National-Treasure. The object itself has disappeared into an anonymous private collection without sight or sound since. Meanwhile the nighthawks have gone over the site. Winter came and has gone, spring too, we are now well into summer, the ground has dried, the sheep have lambed. When was the excavation? Where is the excavation archive? Where and when will it be published? The only Google hit for the term might be helpful to the excavators, but does not reveal that one took place. So what happened? What was the context of deposition of this extraordinary object?

The Amateurish Destruction of World History by Britain at Crosby Garrett

.

An intriguing text by arts journalist Souren Melikian about the Crosby Garret helmet ('The Destruction of History') has just come out in the April 2011 issue of Art+ Auction magazine, now accessible online. The basic thesis is that the object is of Sassanian workmanship (which I do not accept) and raises the question of how it got to where it was found. Oddly, in the context of the article's main thesis, it does not discuss whether it was actually found where it was reputed to have been found. Melikian does not have too good a word for British laws on artefact hunting...

The piece[...] was found by an amateur at a site that was disturbed in the rough digging process instead of being recorded in detail. [...] If ever there was an instance of inept legislation granting legitimacy to what is effectively the destruction of an archaeological context, this is it. The British media chorus [...] implicitly accepting the notion that digging for the purpose of treasure hunting is okay. Reports deplored the loss of the helmet to the region where it had been unearthed, but not a word was said about the far greater tragedy incurred by what may be called Britain’s underground records of history. [...] The surrounding terrain [...] should have been very carefully investigated. Apparently it was not.[...] Whatever the location, each properly recorded discovery yields invaluable information to world history.

The article discusses the place of manufacture of the Crosby Garrett helmet, invoking a series of parallels completely ignored by the ('Universalist') British Museum's PAS in their own write-up of the object and then finishes with a flourish:

A law that [...] ignores the proper preservation of buried archives cannot be right. The notion of discovering a "treasure trove" is suitable for Boy Scouts but is absurd for anyone concerned with culture and knowledge. The amateurish digging up of artifacts from the ancient past is as unconscionable as burning the Amazon rainforest. It is high time for international agreements to be hashed out about the archeological ecology of our world. As the saying goes, we are all in it together.

And we are all the losers as the result of Britain's boy scout heritage mismanagement laws.
.

Another Griffin like the Crosby Garrett one?

.
Two people have drawn my attention today to Tony Henderson's article "Vindolanda excavators close to hitting jackpot", The Journal Jan 14th 2011.

EXCAVATORS at a Northumberland Roman fort have come tantalisingly close to hitting a cash jackpot. They unearthed a bronze griffin figure, identical to that which features on the peak of a helmet found last year at the north west Cumbrian village of Crosby Garrett by a metal detectorist [...] The latest find was made at Vindolanda fort near Bardon Mill in Northumberland, where 500 volunteers work over the excavating season. Robin Birley, director of research at Vindolanda, said: “The griffin is exactly the same as the Crosby Garrett helmet and has been made by the same craftsman. [...] This has been made for a pretty posh bunch of cavalry and we had cavalry at Vindolanda from time to time.” The discovery is one of several hundred finds made during the excavating season.

The find of two identical bronze griffins made by the same craftsman would be significant. The findspot of the Vindolanda one is certain, the Crosby Garrett find however was undocumented for three months and remains unconfirmed and doubts have been raised about whether the helmet had indeed originally been buried there. This new evidence cvould raise the question whether the Crosby Garrett helmet had been used by a cavalry unit at Vindolanda (a scheduled site)?


While it's a nice story, the truth of the matter is that there are quite considerable differences between the Vindolanda and Crosby Garrett griffins. The former has a flat base, nothing in front and no loops, it's also much smaller than the Crosby Garrett one. It's just a griffin like any griffin. The archaeologists' enthusiasm is getting the better of them.

Note also the way in this story that the current damaging emphasis placed on cash rewards for Treasure by British archaeology's largest outreach scheme has misinformed the journalist that what archaeologists are digging for at Vindolanda is "hitting a cash jackpot".
.
Vindolanda griffin.

Gill on PAS as Preservation (6): "Response" from the PAS?

.

Well, this is an ODD one ! Very very odd. Ms Worrell is accredited as: "Prehistoric and Roman Finds Adviser, Portable Antiquities Scheme, UCL Institute of Archaeology". Sadly she is the only member of the PAS staff who responded to Gill, according to the editor Brian Hole, "Unfortunately due to the sensitivity of the subject, PAS itself was less willing to contribute". That can only sound extremely comical. Fifty staff members of the PAS are out there in the midst of the general public engaging with treasure hunting clubs, for example in the roughest areas of Essex, and with cultural philistine "what's this archaeology for then, anyway?" diehards like my Mum, explaining to them the importance of what they do. And yet when David Gill ("the polite one") writes a text involving a few gentlemanly arguments, the PAS cannot muster up an answer? The PAS cannot spend a few hours at most discussing these issues with archaeologists in a proper archaeological journal, giving its response to what David wrote? Why not? Why run away from the opportunity to discuss with the very milieu the PAS is suppodedly representing as archaeology's "outreach" to the wider public? Was the venue, a proper journal produced by an academic institution, not in some way suitable? If they were invited to talk to metal detectorists I bet they'd find the time and the words and petrol money...

So after all that effort, all we get from the PAS is this brief text by Ms Worrell. David Gill initiated a discussion on current policies towards artefact hunting in England and Wales, in which the recently discovered Crosby Garret Roman helment is mentioned several times. Instead of addressing the issues Gill raises, she summarises events surrounding the discovery and sale of this single object (this is in fact similar to her text in British Archaeology published about the same time). What is notable however is that Worrell does not add any depth to the discussion on how the problems which obviously occurred here could be resolved. The text seems more of an apologia, explaining why the finders and landowners cannot really be accused of doing anything wrong. Surely that was not the point that Gill was making.
.
One might say, taking the lead from metal detectorist Candice Jarman: "How about answering some questions, Dr Bland?" Well, I have answered hers, now let Roger Bland give David Gill the answer his thoughtful contribution deserves. Shame on you PAS.
.