Wot Evry Metal Detectink Coin Collecter Needs

.
If you are a metal detecting coin collector in the UK, I expect you feel the need for a 6PC ARCHAEOLOGY ARTIFACT & COIN CLEANING BRUSHES TOOLS set. The set includes "six Toothbrush sized brushes, the heads measure approx 1-1/4" long by 1/2" wide, handle measures approx 6" long. Included are 2 x Steel Brushes for removing the stubborn stains, 2 x Brass Brushes for giving that goldy glow to your coins and 2 x Nylon Brushes for buffing up the "patina" - or applying the chemical patination mixture you'll need after ripping the corrosion products off down to bare metal with the other four.

These are the tools called on for both heavy duty mass-moving work and fine, detailed, delicate work. When a coin is caked in accumulations and dirt, it can be hard to remove; these tools help. Great addition to our ARCHAEOLOGY TOOL KITS check out our other items for sale.

No, I do not think this is an "archaeology' tool kit, it's an artefact destruction tool kit favoured more by ignorant private collectors, and not purchased by those 'in the know'.

Britain: "An Amateur Treasure-Seeker's Paradise"

.
Britain, due to lax legislation is now considered an amateur treasure-seeker's paradise where, according to Stefano Ambrogi of Reuters reporting on another PAS boastfest ('Britain: An amateur treasure-seeker's paradise', May 25th 2011) "unusually, government and museums approve detection and digging by general public" and "detector enthusiasts [...] are able to keep their haul":

Britain is bursting with ancient buried treasure and the masses have been bitten by the bug for digging it up — ironically with the full approval of the government and leading museums. Latest figures released by the British Museum on Wednesday showed a "massive" jump in the number of antiquities and spectacular objects classed as treasure being found by ordinary citizens with a passion for history.

"Highlights displayed at the British Museum" include "a stash of late Iron Age solid gold coins, called "staters," dating from 15 to 20 AD" (that would be the Wickham Market hoard where limited excavations - I think as yet unpublished - failed to reveal much about its burial context). "Of equal importance" (for whom?) "is a unique Roman knife handle depicting a perverted erotic scene involving two males and a female with one of the figures clutching a decapitated head. Only a handful of erotic knife handle designs have ever been found in Britain".

Apparently we are to rejoice that "In 2010, over 90,000 archaeological objects were reported to museums across the country — a 36 percent rise on 2009 — through what is known as the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS)". Well, were they? Is that REALLY what that figure of 90 000 represents? Who says so? Where is the Celtic Coin Index and the Roman Coins of Wales database? What about the Norfolk paper records entered by interns? All these contain information coming from PREVIOUS years, and not 2010 alone, don't they? In the case of the CCI some data going back to the eighteenth century well before electronic metal detectors (well before electricity in fact).

According to the article (is this based on a PAS press release?) the reason why so-called "detector enthusiasts" (why not call them what they are - artefact hunters?) were "derided by archaeologists in the past for their unscientific practices". That rather skips over what is meant by "unscientific", it is not whether they use more sophisticated (depth advantage and discriminating) electronic tools for "detecting" metal collectables, but the fact that the archaeological record is being actively mined as a source of collectables in Britain. That is what the problem is, sites and assemblages are being ripped apart and plundered for collectable geegaws, and all the public is told by an appreciative press is that we've an erotic knife handle and to a set of post-medieval false teeth to show for it. And tens of thousands of utterly trashed archaeological sites.

Along comes Michael Lewis to announce that the scheme differed markedly from the way in which excavation is regulated in the rest of Europe

which he said was "draconian" by comparison.

"Draconian" is the sort of word used by dealers and collectors. The likes of Wayne Sayles and Dave Welsh of the ACCG, William Pearlstein of the ACCP. The ACCG certainly thinks the PAS is on their side. Expressions of disdain for measures proposed by other countries in an effort to protect their archaeological sites from being trashed by artefact hunters and collectors being expressed by the PAS certainly do nothing to dispel this impression. After all as we all know, Roger Bland was a willing recipient of the ACCG "Friends of Numismatics" award.

Those so-called "draconian laws" mean that it is illegal to trash sites and treat them as geegaw mines in most other countries of the world (including on public lands in the USA). I really do not see that Britain has anything to be proud of that it is not in England, Wales and Scotland.

Here's some holes dug by artefact hunters at Wanborough and an excavation of a site after the artefact hunters have been there - do artefact hunters no longer damage sites now Britain has a PAS?

That's like making a virtue of the fact that a country may have (for example) limited anti-rape laws. Fine for male perverts, less so for the women who live there. Britain's legislation is fine for the artefact collector, ideal for the dealer (as long as its not for export) and as we have seen now widely regarded as a 'paradise' for treasure seekers. But its not protecting the archaeology. Filling museum cases with pretty dugup and ripped off geegaws is what nineteenth century antiquaries used to do. Elgin, Layard, Botta and Belzoni for example. But it is not "doing archaeology". It is not protecting sites. Paying for upwards of 800 "Treasures" unnecessarily ripped to a great degree from their (unknown because nobody investigates most of the sites) context of deposition well below plough level on otherwise unthreatened sites loudly applauded by all is costing millions yearly. I really cannot see why Lewis thinks this is anything for the Brits to boast about. What on earth do British archaeologists think they are doing just passively watching on as this sort of thing goes on?

Lauding the scheme Vaizey said: It really is incredibly effective...and it works."

Well, only until you stop parroting what you got on the self-gratulatory press release and start asking other questions. What it is actually doing is providing a platform legitimising artefact hunting, looting, and collecting as well as the antiquity trade. It is not actually mitigating the losses to the British archaeological record to any satisfactory degree, because the token big numbers do not look so impressive when you try to examine the evidence for the overall losses. The PAS (including the publicity given to events such as this) seems actually to be directly responsible for an increase in the number of people taking up this erosive and destructive hobby in Britain. It is also actively eroding public perceptions of the aims and purposes (and methods of) archaeology [and that's worldwide]. In actual fact, closer familiarity with what "metal detectorists" are up to behind the scenes (try looking in on the closed sections of their forums Mr Vaisey) reveal as clear as can be that the PAS is failing to instil "best practice" to any significant degree - and yet that was one of the government's primary aims in setting it up. In fact the PAS seems woefully unaware of the need to do anything about recent developments. Neither - most significantly in my opinion - is it providing any kind of a forum for discussion of the issues surrounding artefact hunting, collecting and the trade (licit and illicit) within archaeology, nor as archaeological "outreach" (ha ha - hollow laugh) to the general - non-collecting - public. A task for which the PAS is showing progressively less interest. I really do not see that there are grounds for the Minister's jubilation that it "works" - did they serve wine at the launch?

Where is the CBA? Where is the IFA? Where is APPAG? Where are RESCUE and The Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers? What is going on? [I can't find my Mad Hatter's Teaparty "doormouse into the teapot" vignette: I'll use this instead]
.
Thanks to Nigel Swift for putting arrows on my map, it seems to present the central dilemma so well that I decided to use it twice. How on earth can anyone in their right mind say the PAS is "working" faced with something as graphic as that? Beats me. Cue more attacks on the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter I guess...

From Cockspur Street to Coventry: What the British DCMS does not Want you to Think About

.
British Culture Minister Vaisey appears terribly impressed that the PAS now has more and more objects in its database and apparently expects us to be too. Indeed the "dadah!" self-advertising toolbar on the PAS website excitedly announces today:

443,102 records * 700,306 objects * 19,053 people involved * 2,986 accounts

There is a problem in getting very excited about these figures, and that is a worrying little thing called the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter. Never mind the vast number of finds that are accidentally being made by ordinary members of the public and not being reported, many many more are being found and deliberately dug up by artefact hunters for personal (private) collection and sale. The HAAEC purports to be a

running total of the number of recordable archaeological artefacts removed from the fields of England and Wales by metal detectorists (mostly without being reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme).

Today: 43
This year:114,883
Since the start of the Portable Antiquities Scheme: 4,196,418
Overall Total since 1975: 11,068,211

Mr Vaisey, like the rest of us, might have difficulty visualising those figures. Let us consider it in terms of the length of a chalk-line (or Bloomsbury pigeon flight) along the Edgeware Road from Marble Arch. Let us say one centimetre represents one record on the PAS database. Our chalk line today would go from the foot of Marble Arch 443,085 cm to Kilburn Tube Station (Iverson Road, where co-incidentally I used to live for a while when a student). If we take the number of "objects" represented by those records, we come to somewhere like Cricklewood Road. So still in comfortable biking distance from Cockspur Street. Very impressive? Well its the combined work of many people over thirteen years and it has cost the Brits thirteen million quid in direct funding alone.

But... the HAAEC says the number of (records of) recordable finds removed from the archaeological record would be about 4,196,418 since the PAS started. How long a chalk line is that many centimetres? It is a line that starts at the foot of Marble Arch, runs up the Edgeware Road, past Watford, St Albans and ends somewhere on the south side of Luton, more or less at the distance between the end of the runway of Luton Airport and Marble Arch. That is one centimetre for every missing find. One centimetre for every recordable archaeological find deliberately removed for personal entertainment and profit from the archaeological record which is a common resource, and vanished without trace. A line from Cockspur Street to Luton Airport. If it cost the Brits thirteen million pounds to get enough finds to get a line a little way up the Edgeware Road, how much would it really cost to get a scheme that would be coping with the rate of erosion to get a line as far as, say - St Albans, about three quarters of the way to Luton Airport?

Obviously, too much. So the answer most British archaeologists apparently adopt is to shrug their shoulders and say it's "better than nothing" and call it a "partnership". And the metal detectorists who've got all the stuff taken from between Cricklewood and Luton Airport are laughing.

Of course there are some who say the HAAEC gives a "false picture". They are right in two regards. The first is that it suggests we (so in other words, the PAS) actually know how many finds are taken, when - even after a thirteen-million-thirteen-year "partnership" with these plunderers of the past, the PAS simply does not. The HAAEC counter is a model, an estimate - but its the best we have. We have to ask by how much it would have to be "wrong" to make the figures acceptable. The second area where it is wrong however takes it the other way, because it takes the UK's population of active metal detectorists as a stable 10 000 (meaning slightly more than 8000 in the area covered by the PAS, which is the figure used in the HAAEC algorithm). I have been doing some thinking about that figure recently and while I feel it was correct (though a conservative estimate) for the period when the Counter was created, several pieces of evidence converge to suggest that the number of metal detector using artefact hunters in Britain has been growing at an annual rate of between 6 and 8% since that time. So the HAAEC should have been ticking away at quickening rate increasing by that amount each year, and it has not. The model is therefore an under-estimate of the number of finds now being lost annually through laissez-faire British policies concerning this activity.


Readers might be interested to know that the chalk line that represents the recordable finds lost to private collecting in England and Wales alone due to metal detecting from 1975 when the hobby really began to take off (one find: one centimetre) stretches from the north wall of Marble Arch to the outskirts of Coventry. But after throwing thirteen million quid at the problem, we only have a record of the ones as far as Kilburn tube station to show for this so-called "partnership".

Vignette: Visualisation of PAS 'achievement' on a map of southern England: red line = PAS records. Blue line = what their 'partners' have taken and PAS has not been able to record, Green line, what metal detectorists have taken since 1975.

PAS: Missing and Avoiding the Point

.

If any of us had suspicions that the PAS is 'losing it', they really seem confirmed by the latest pronouncement to emerge from their Bloomsbury head office. I have previously discussed (probably several times) the new trend towards so-called "depth advantage" (I would call them 'site-wrecker') metal detectors. I think Heritage Action also has drawn attention to the 'buzz' about them on the detecting forums. You might therefore have expected PAS to be aware that such things exist and that tekkies are discussing them excitedly. Then I have also mentioned here several types of metal detector disguised as something else (like the 'Rover Undercover') which their manufacturers say are designed to be used in situations where the artefact hunter 'does not want to attract attention' to the fact they are metal detecting there. Heritage Action decided it would be a good idea to ask PAS about what they are doing about these new trends in an effort to encourage "best practice" among "finders". So they sent them a question.

Question Posed: “Has PAS ensured that every landowner is aware there are metal detectors disguised as walking sticks and a new generation of deep-seeking metal detectors that pose a potential threat to archaeology?”

Seems like a pretty simple question, not a tricky one at all. British antiquities preservation legislation, such as it is, has its origins in Queen Victoria's day and as such places the responsibility for looking after the buried heritage on the educated class of the day, which was the landowner. And so it remains today, in the case of unscheduled archaeological sites it is the landowner who says who can go on them and plunder them for collectables. As such, Heritage Action has always had the perfectly reasonable standpoint that if we want to protect and preserve the archaeological record, British archaeology should be doing active outreach to landowners to persuade them to (and tell them how best they can from an archaeological point of view) look after the archaeological sites on their land. Like hedges and wildlife.

So it seems to HA (and to me) that to fulfil this role properly includes keeping landowners and land users fully appraised of the threats. In that context, alerting them to the fact that some firms are developing metal detectors disguised as other objects so dishonest users can avoid getting caught artefact hunting where they should not, is entirely justified. Let landowners keep a look out for such machines and consider throwing anyone off their land who is carrying one. Equally, artefact hunters who turn up with 'site wrecker' machines are not the "harmless hobbyists just taking things from the topsoil" they claim to be. Again, the informed landowner (for example those taking part in Environmental Stewardship schemes) might consider whether such machines are not damaging the archaeological heritage and ban their use on their property.

Now HA and I happen to feel that PAS does not do enough to keep landowners informed about what artefact hunting is about, vide the farce over the PAS landowner leaflet. They are afraid (yes) of the reaction of the tekkies, who have made their opinions about this 'going behind their back' (sic) known. So actually I have the feeling they were expecting a short answer to their simple question: "no".

The answer that was received was extremely surprising. It showed above all that PAS did not understand the question!!

Response by PAS: “In response to your question dated 28th April 2011, Roger Bland has asked me to state: Probes such as this have been on the market for several years. They are used to locate the precise location of a metal object within a block of soil once this has been located by the search head of a metal detector. We do not think contacting every landowner to alert them to existence of these devices is either necessary or practicable.”

"Probes such as this?" Roger Bland, the Head of the PAS seems from his reply not to be terribly clued up about the tools of the "finders" with whom his Scheme is in a "partnership". That is pretty astounding, actually. He is confusing the tools to which Heritage Action refers with the pinpoint probes I discussed here earlier. But what HA was talking about are not “probes”, they are metal detectors.

The manufacturers refer to them as that and nothing else and promote them for use in scanning the ground and nothing else. There is in fact no confusion whatsoever about their intended or actual use. One does not require something “disguised as a walking stick” to use as a probe in conjunction with another metal detector. One does need something disguised as a walking stick in order to search in the way the manufacturers indicate – “in areas where you couldn’t with common detectors… without arousing public interest” and to “scan places you never could scan before”. There can be no doubt these machines would be objects of desire for nighthawks (or to be precise in this case, dayhawks), people intent on detecting without anyone knowing.

As HA points out, it is difficult to see how it can be said that it is "not necessary" to keep landowners involved about new developments which could facilitate illegal artefact hunting on their land.

But look how the second element of the question was simply ignored. The PAS totally ignored the bit of the question which asked for its position on "a new generation of deep-seeking metal detectors that pose a potential threat to archaeology?" (I would not have used the word "potential", they DO pose a threat to buried archaeology). That is just a total cop-out.

I suggest next time Heritage Action should go instead and ask the pigeons in Bloomsbury Square, they'd probably get an equally sensible answer to their questions from them than from inside the British Museum.

Conserving and Enhancing England's Environment?

.

Natural England is an independent public body whose purpose is to protect and improve England’s environment and encourage people to enjoy and get involved in their surroundings. The organization says its remit includes its cultural heritage. In their section on 'Our Work', is breathlessly enthusiastic about all the spiffing things one can do in the countryside.... “so if you want to try something new or need advice on where to get more information this is the section for you” Including, at the bottom, "For the less energetic, see what you can find underground by metal detecting" And just look where the link goes. The organization which has its OWN Code of Responsible Conduct for the activity (see here). A severe lack of joined-up thinking there it seems.

One almost expects the other 'conservation-related' activities this karaoke-society conservation organization recommends include badger-baiting, bird-egging, wild-flower pressing and off-road 4x4 safaris across fragile upland grasslands.

Does Britain have any archaeological organizations that could be interacting with bodies like this? It really does not look like it, does it?
.

Rousing Music and a Spade

.
There is some publicity material urging us to: "Follow James Balme as his search continues throughout 2011". James Balme is a multi-talented individual it seems who is "Director, Presenter & Producer" of "Historic Media Productions" (which is helpfully described as a "Media Production industry"). He is also an "Archaeologist, Historian & Broadcast Video journalist" (as well as being a trained chef). He describes his qualifications in archaeology as "Advanced, 20+ years experience", and as Historian also ("Expert, 20+ years experience"). But it seems the qualifications are from experience rather than professional training: "James has made many exciting archaeological discoveries from the prehistoric through to Saxon & Viking times including three seperate (sic) finds of Roman Silver artifacts (sic) all now declared National Treasure and secured for future generations to enjoy". What about the ones not declared Treasure; where will future generations of archaeology-interested members of the public "enjoy" them? Note that rather nice change to the official legal designation, "National Treasure" - just trying to make the point that this is a "discoverer" and not a mere "treasure-hunter". James is of course a metal detectorist from Warrington.

So here we see the ultimate expression of the karaoke-join-in-and-do-it-yerself society, get a metal detector and a video camera and get out there calling yourself an expert historian digging up the archaeological record and get yourself on TV. Nice music though. Awful trees, just what do they do to them up there?


UPDATE 21st may 2011: Mr Balme answered this, but put his comments under a completely unrelated post. There is a lot of name-dropping, he has also altered his in-Link page to figure the amateur society he once dug with. I made reference to the 'karaoke-society' concerning metal detecting and he disapproves of that comment (I can't see how it 'shows' my 'ignorance').

There are, it is true, some archaeologists who think artefact hunting is "archaeology for all", the whole PAS for a start, David Connolly and Gabriel Moshenska. I think there are a number of very good reasons why they are wrong. Artefact hunting is artefact hunting, and whenever we see a film announcing Mr Balme as an 'archaeologist' or 'historian', there is a C-Scope metal detector swinging wildly in the background, or he is shown spreading out his (metal) finds. In the Agden Hoard video he talks of 'the collection' (see here, 'Dream Finds' too), part of it is shown in the 'classic treasures' video. I have yet to see a video on the topic of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, or him doing a gridded fieldwalking survey plotting the distribution of pottery, tile and slag across the Roman site he is emptying of metal finds with his metal detector. Just film of his digging holes in fields and finding 'treasures' about which to utter glib platitudes about 'touching history', 'bringing history to life' and 'finding our ancestors', or adding gossipy details about an object. In the film above, "you join me as we are in search for more artefacts and more treasures left behind by the ancient ancestors of Britain" and „history, archaeology and metal detecting can all be knitted very closely as we go in search for the history of our ancestors”. Note when he suggests everyone can have a go at [digging up and] 'touching history' the film contains not a reference to what to do if you decide to have a go yourself - like go and see the FLO.

Mr Balme seems aware that if he were to call himself a "metal detectorist" or - worse "artefact hunter", he would project a different image than if he claims to be an archaeologist or historian, which seems to me why he is at such pains to present metal detecting as "archaeology". Apparently he never says outright on camera he's going a-metal-detecting, he uses terms like: "looking for archaeology and history and clues from our past". He's even got "Archaeological Field research" written on the side of his car... but artefact hunting and artefact collecting are quite a separate activity from archaeology, and when you examine the concept in more detail, the supposed "common ground" which fluffy archaeologists say exists between the two is, I would argue, rather more of a convenient illusion than they care to admit.

We never did find out about the mutant trees.

That Last Post ("The PAS database: What people collect in the UK")

.
Last night after I'd posted the original of the post below this, Blogger had an "issue" and the whole site was "down" (meaning it was "read only", bloggers could not edit anything). We'll be back online "soon" we were told, continually, for a whole night and the best part of the next day. Then somewhere along the line we were told that posts made in the few hours before the "maintenance" started would be temporarily removed until blogger was "stable" again, but then they would be reinstated. I was worried about some drafts I'd created yesterday, but when the thing came back online they were there, but the post I'd made on the PAS statistics has gone - vanished into cyber-Hades. Fortunately I have the whole blog backed-up, just in case.

I mention this because of a rather puzzling post made on the forum Moneta-L where coineys hang out in private. It was made by ACCG-lackey John Hooker:

Hi all, I rarely refer people to Paul Barford's blog, and I never quote an entry in full, but today is an exception! I am copying the entire post, just in case someone tells him what he has done and he removes it. Statistics are a funny thing, sometimes, what they show is not exactly the point that is made of them. In this example, it shows very clearly that most of what is being recovered from metal detectoring are accidental losses -- not from any archaeological site and utterly free from "archaeological context". However, if one is in the midst of an /idée fixe/, then this might not be apparent:

[ there then follows a cut-and-paste with a LINK no less of my text of Thursday, 12 May 2011: "The PAS database: What people collect in the UK"]

Unfortunately, Mr Hooker, his thinking being coin-addled, does not see fit to explain in what way the information I summarised and presented there "shows very clearly that most of what is being recovered from metal detectoring (sic) are accidental losses -- not from any archaeological site and utterly free from "archaeological context". That's like saying the Parthenon Marbles cannot possibly be from any Greek building as there are no column bases or worn thresholds in the collection. Lord Elgin's men ripped off what they thought interesting, collectable and displayable, and smashed their way through what they did not want to cart off, leaving a mess of the rest. That is exactly what we have in the metal detecting finds reported to the PAS (have a look at the UKDFD dataset for exactly the same picture).

Certainly I do not consider Mr Hooker has made his point about what I "have done". I think what I wrote reveals nothing other than what it reveals, which is that the mess collectors make of the productive sites they take things from is not in any way mitigated by a record such as the Portable Antiquities Scheme Database. Contrary to Mr Hooker, I hold that the "record" we have of the results of the activity which produced it is insufficient to say anything much about the sites and assemblages the material comes from.

Mr Hooker and fellow Monetans would do well to do some reading about how UK detectorists find 'productive sites' to collect from. There are plenty of 'how to' texts available now. (I know, they find reading real books about anything but old coins a bind, maybe they can find a GoogleBooks version).

Certainly, Monetans can be assured that the temporary disappearance of this post was a problem with blogger in general and was NOT in any way connected with any "realisation" that the data could be read another way.

[As for the"statistics", the post in question was to be one of two - there is something very "interesting" indeed about the figures I quoted, and I am surprised that Mr Hooker of all people did not spot it, but I'll finish writing that one later UPDATE 17/5/11: I see a few people are looking in at this post, so supply the link of the further text on the subject of the PAS database].

Commercial Artefact Hunting rallies in the UK attended (legitimised) by the PAS

.
There is a useful handlist of the commercial artefact hunting rallies in the UK attended by the PAS between 2000 and today from the PAS website. The hyperlinks should give details of which FLO was there and what was reported. I am not clear whether this list means that before 2008 the PAS was not in attendance at any of the many dozens of commercial rallies that were taking place, or whether the details are now difficult to extract from the records. I note for example that the rally in Suffolk in 2008 from which emerged a fuss about me including a photo of the FLO in action seems not to be on this list. The map of commercial artefact hunting rallies in which the Portable Antiquities Scheme has been involved may not therefore be fully up to date. The geographical pattern it reveals is quite interesting.

Each of these places represents an area where the archaeological record over a substantial area has been depleted and in places destroyed by the selective removal of material. To what degree is this mitigated by the lists of a few dozen finds for the most part from unrecorded places within the original pattern contained in the PAS database? What was not recorded at these commercial rallies? How much money was made (including by participants flogging off the finds afterwards) from these events, and how much did providing PAS legitimation of them cost the public? It seems to me that commercial rallies are an especially weak link in the pro-artefact hunting arguments.

1998

1999

2000

Linkenholt 1st September 2000 1st September 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Rallies that the Portable Antiquities Scheme has attended

Linkenholt 1st September 2000 1st September 2000

2005

Myddle Rally 2005, Shropshire 3rd September 2005 4th September 2005

Rotary Charity Rally at Brill, Bucks 2005 10th April 2005

2006

Myddle Rally 2006, Shropshire 16th September 2006 17th September 2006

Rotary Charity Rally at Brill, Bucks 2006 9th April 2006

2007

Weekend Wanderers at Billingsfield II 4th November 2007

Weekend Wanderers at Billingsfield I 23rd September 2007

Rotary Charity Rally at Brill, Bucks 2007 15th April 2007

2008

Baddiley, Cheshire - 26/10/2008 26th October 2008

Fosse Way charity rally 12th October 2008

South Shropshire Rally 12th October 2008

Weekend Wanderers - Ropley (28-09-2008) 28th September 2008

Thrapston & Raunds Charity Rally 28th September 2008

Cliffe Metal Detecting Club Rally 14th September 2008

Trowbridge club rally 8th September 2008

Stixwould rally 5th September 2008 - 7th September 2008

Firle Rally 5 23rd August 2008 - 25th August 2008

Water Newton II 23rd August 2008 - 25th August 2008

Water Newton I 17th August 2008 - 19th August 2008

Weekend Wanderers - Ropley 27th July 2008

Rotary Charity Rally at Brill, Bucks 2008 27th April 2008 27th April 2008

Combermere Abbey 2008 24th February 2008

2009

Weekend Wanderers - Broughton (20/12/09) 20th December 2009

Somerton 2009 8th November 2009

Weekend Wanderers - Otterbourne (18/10/09) 18th October 2009

Rotary charity rally/Wessex MDC - Hannington (04/10/09) 4th October

Combermere Abbey 2009 27th September 2009

Tickhill 2009 25th September 2009 - 27th September 2009

Water Newton Rally III 25th September 2009 - 27th September 2009

Glemsford Rally 2009 25th September 2009 - 27th September 2009

West Hanney 2009 19th September 2009 - 20th September 2009

Coinshooters Charity Rally at Padbury 12th September 2009 - 13th September 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover Dean 5th September 2009

Linwood, Market Rasen, Lincolnshire 4th September 2009 - 6th September 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover Dean 30th August 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover 27th August 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Hardwick 23rd August 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover 20th August 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Mentmore 25th July 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover Dean 28th June 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover Dean 28th June 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Mentmore 9th May 2009

CS at Wharley End, Beds, 2nd - 4th May 2009 2nd May 2009 - 4th May 2009

Rotary Charity Rally at Brill, Bucks 2009 26th April 2009

Malton 2009 10th April 2009 - 13th April 2009

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover Dean 22nd February 2009

Weekend Wanderers - Twyford 1st February 2009

Weekend Wanderers at St Leanards, Bucks 17th January 2009

2010

Weekend Wanderers - Stone 27th November 2010

Marsh Farm, Sudbourne, Suffolk, November 2010 21st November 2010

Beckingham Hall (Tolleshunt Major) Essex Oct 2010 31st October 2010

Weekend Wanderers - Cholsey 2nd October 2010

Green Farm, Bacton, Sept 2010 26th September 2010

Isleham, Cambridgeshire, 2010 26th September 2010

Glemsford Rally, Suffolk, Sept 2010 24th September 2010 - 26th September 2010

Langham, Essex (Colchester MDC) Rally 19th September 2010

Urchfont 2010 17th September 2010 -19th September 2010

Grange de Lings, Lincolnshire 17th September 2010 - 19th September 2010

Andover Anton Rotary Club Charity Metal Detecting Rally 12th September 2010

Western Region (Dave's) rally, Broad Hinton, Wiltshire 12th September 2010

Wyverstone Rally, Suffolk 2010 12th September 2010

Fosse Way RABI rally 2010 12th September 2010

West Hanney 2010 10th September 2010 - 12th September 2010

Water Newton IV 10th September 2010 - 12th September 2010

Great Shefford 10 - Rotary club & Leisure Promo 5th September 2010

Detecting Wales Rally - Ludlow 2 5th September 2010

Bridlington Quay Metal Detecting Club Luttons Rally 29th August 2010

Weekend Wanderers at Ellesborough 29th August 2010

Weekend Wanderers - Ropley 26th August 2010

Weekend Wanderers - Ropley 28th August 2010

Hacheston 22/8/10 22nd August 2010

Detecting Wales Rally (19) - Ludlow Area 15th August 2010

Dewsbury District MDC Dog Tag Rally 2010 15th August 2010

Weekend Wanderers - Wendover 12th August 2010

Rally UK Matching Green 8th August 2010

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover [Hale Lane] 5th August 2010

WW Fritwell Aug 2010 1st August 2010

Weekend Wanderers at Wendover Dean 22nd July 2010

2011

Rotary Charity Rally at Brill, Bucks 2011 17th April 2011

Brampton and Longtown Rotary Club MD Rally 2011 3rd April 2011

The Rodings, Essex 27th March 2011

Rotary/LP rally - East Stratton, Hants (27/03/11) 27th March 2011

Weekend Wanderers - Crawley (12/02/11) 12th February 2011

Combermere Abbey 2011 6th February 2011

Burley Gate - Herefordshire - Detecting Wales 30th January 2011 30th January 2011

Weekend Wanderers - Twyford (30/01/11) 30th January 2011 30th January 2011

Weekend Wanderers - Broughton (02/01/11) 2nd January 2011 2nd January 2011

Although as will be seen, one of the Raunds events is listed, if you click on the link you will see that not a single item from this 2008 rally was ever shown to any FLO. That's Central Searchers for you, all "take" and no "give". So what if it was for "charity" when the people involved are merely there to pocket history for the pounds and pennies they spent?

Swedish Treasure Trial Underway

.
A while ago I posted a text on the Gandave (Gotland) hoard looted from under the noses of an archaeological team by nocturnal thieves. One of the men accused of the crime turned out to be a Stockholm coin dealer (I wonder if a member of the PNG/ IAPN and ACCG?). Anyway, their trial is just beginning. The charges the defendants face include preparation of aggravated crime against relics and aggravated crime against relics, which carries a penalty of up to four years in prison. The defendants have denied the charges.

The suspects were linked to the crime scene by the discovery of a broken crucifix left behind in the looters' holes. Several days later somebody watching internet sales discovered traces of the purchase of what was obviously part of the same crucifix. The police raided the home of the purchaser, a man from southern Sweden, and retrieved the stolen artefact. From the buyer the trail led the Police back to a well-known coin dealer in Stockholm.

During a raid on his property on Gotland, investigators came across muddy clothes, metal detectors, shovels, backpacks and a car especially equipped with night vision. After examining computers and GPS equipment, police also found links between the defendants and two other places where looters had struck on Gotland.

Wednesday's trial is important because it is the first time since the laws on relics were made more strict in the 1990’s that one of these cases have been brought to trial. “We have seen many investigations over the past few years that have had to be dropped due to lack of evidence,“ said local police officer Mikael Åslund to daily Dagens Nyheter (DN) In 2009 there were 18 reports of unauthorized digging on Gotland, three of which are part of the prosecution’s evidence in the ongoing trial against the five men.

But since the police apprehended the looters in November 2009, there have been no more reports. “It is our feeling that looters have gone under ground, “ Östergren told DN.

I presume rather than clandestine illegal digging going on in a more clandestine and illegal manner, it means the clandestine illegal diggers have stopped - being aware that they can be traced through people keeping a track on the sales of items of dubious provenance.

Rebecca Martin, 'Looted Viking treasure trial gets under way', thelocal.se 4 May 2011

Artefact Hunting Equipment: the Pinpoint Probe

.
What kind of equipment would a professional artefact hunter use? Well, to get those artefacts out of the ground quicker for example they might use a pinpoint probe like this one from Garrett.

This one is being used by a US metal detectorist (dermatitis alert here) and had vibration features and a LED so you can use it in "low light conditions" (nudge-nudge, wink-wink). You even get a manly hip-holster with it to help you look the part as you swagger out at the next rally. Or you could get one shaped like a pistol for that real Wild West gold prospector look. But don't laugh, here's a video of a ground-stabbing guy (that turf's not going to grow back) using one of the latter to find a really, really old (1782!) coin ...

This is obviously just a part of the equipment an artefact hunter might use to speed up the hoiking of artefacts out of archaeological sites and assemblages. Obviously nobody is going to be groping around on sites on their knees using this instead of a metal detector, such as one of the new generation "depth advantage" site-wreckers, but used together with one, it speeds the process of destruction no end.

Skunky and Clive Organized this Rally, Look Who is Here

.
Some of my readers may have followed my suggestion to register with some of the UK forums where metal detectorists hide their deliberations away in closed area and hide under pseudonyms. Those that have will find a video included on the new PAs website ("Skunky and Clive's Commercial Artefact Hunting Grabfest") very informative in several ways. Above all it helps put some faces to some of the more vociferous contributors to discussions on those Forums. I must admit to being myself surprised by the revelation by Mr Taylor the film-maker of the identity of one of them.

There is also an intrusion on the privacy of the couple known as the Nighthawking Bastards, now those who have winced at their YouTube performances and followed the adventures of 'Groundstabber' on UKDN will know what they look like now.

I'd like to draw attention to the bit where the rally participants are showing their finds in the middle of the film. There is something here I have noted before, but this really seems to be suggesting its part of a wider pattern. Note the prevalence of serious dermatological conditions on the skin of their hands and nails. What is the connection there between metal detector use and skin disease?

[As for a typical example of a "Nighthawking bastards" sketch try 'nighthawking bastards getting permission' (farmers might like to note how some artefact hunters see landowners). Apparently metal detectorists find this kind of thing hilariously funny - which perhaps gives an indication of what sort of person takes up the hobby in the UK].

* * *

UPDATE: Within a few minutes of this post going up, Mr Taylor blocked access to the videos section of his website with the Skanky and Clive video. That will make it a bit difficult then for him to use it to spread his anti-archaeological message through the other ("archie backstabbers") video on that page (and yesterday he blocked access to the 'documents' page where he described his grievances with the [real] PAS and treasure process which accompanied it). You can, for now, still see the anti-archaeological video on YouTube I expect.

Now what is the point of having a website for an - ostensibly - academic public service heritage organization which aims to make its findings accessible to the general public, if the website is closed off to the general public?

And I was going to put another post up tomorrow to draw attention to the corrosion products on some of those finds the pals of Skunky and Clive, Dean and Baz were showing in that video with their diseased hands. They are not at all what one would expect if what metal detectorists say is true. But it is not true and this is why people like Steve Taylor hide stuff when the material they present is used as a source of information/material for demonstration. But I've got another metal detecting topic to put up a post on tomorrow, nothing to do with Mr Taylor, but a friend of his I suspect.

PAs' New Database for Archaeological Finds

.
The Portable Antiquities society has, or is starting a new national database for information about human migration through the centuries in Gloucestershire, as announced on their website:

"Our interests are to map out the history of Gloucestershire, and record human migration throughout the centuries, and publish the information on a national database"

. Anyone who thought this would include DNA sampling and census records will be disappointed to learn from deeper in the webpage that this is not the kind of data sought, they are searching the plough soil for 'our lost past' and for this they are using 'sophisticated electronic aids in locating small metallic objects'. This team has 'many years of experience' of such locating and mapping and will generously undertake this task for the reader 'in our spare time at no cost to you', and I guess the landowner gets to keep the finds too. Win-win (as they say in PAS circles), the PAs gets the information they need, the landowner the bits of 'lost history'. All the PAs want is:

We hope to illust[r]ate and record finds from Gloucestershire on our national data base which can be shared by all, for future generations.

The website is still in development, so it is understandable perhaps that the public are not given any information about this new national database, how it is related to the existing one already run by the PAS and how this national database will be linked to the work of the HERs on a national scale (which are also mapping heritage). Otherwise there might be worries that we are seeing the advent of yet another private pirate database like the UKDFD run from a leaky shed in Milton Keynes.

Of course the UKDFD cannot be this database because there is no user on there called "Portable Antiquities Society" (or Steve Taylor) recording the finds from those 110 farms in Gloucestershire Mr Taylor claims to have written permissions to search on, neither is he a prolific reporter on the Portable Antiquities Scheme. There is however an account on UKDFD under the name "chainmail" in which somebody has posted 3 (three) items, including a so-called "celtic sword pommel" found near Cirencester by Mr Taylor (NOT recorded on the PAS database). Hardly really counts as mapping human migrations and recording them on a "national database" does it?

In any case surely there is no real need to set up a new 'society' to get metal detecting finds on a national database where everybody can see them and profit from the information. The PAS FLO visits societies of responsible metal detectorists in the Cheltenham area to achieve this, and Mr Taylor can show his finds to the FLO at club meetings, can't he?

Observer: "The Chances of Further Hoards of Large Gold Coins are Slim"

.
In collecting of ancient coins there is an underlying current of tension between the 'pure' collector and those buying coins as an investment (the latter of course of concern to the collector as it takes items off the market and affects prices) so collectors are particularly interested in the supply of newly-surfaced items from the searchings of metal detectorists. A collector on the EnglishHammered forum observing what metal detectorists have been doing in the UK notes a recent slowdown in large gold hoard coins coming onto the market (Treasure Act, anyone?) and has come to a conclusion which he wants to check:

Can anyone with knowledge of detecting confirm what I suspect - that gold has a good response on a detector and is relatively easy to pick up if there. So the chances of further large gold hoards is slim.

As a collector his concern at the apparent completion of the depletion of this finite resource has the significance that it will make filling of gaps in his collection much more expensive in future as prices go up as the new collectors compete for a finite amount of material, but it also means (yay!) for the same reason that the resale value of coins in his collection will have kept up with inflation. For those of us more concerned about another aspect of that finite quality of the resource in the ground, the vision that by 2011 thousands of metal detector using artefact hunters hoovering the fields for collectables will by now have covered every possible site in every possible field is a very real possibility. This collector is suggesting that as a result of current policies in Britain, this particular part of the archaeological resource may have already gone. Even if he is wrong, we are well on the way to this happening.

[The PAS might like to do collectors and investors a service and produce a chart on whether the reporting of particular types of portable antiquity groups as Treasure is on the increase, decrease or relatively stable as likely find spots are searched dry. I do not think the trend for large gold hammered coins will prove to be as the collector predicted]

A while ago an insistent journalist for a big British national was beggaring me with questions for an article he will be writing (yet to materialise I see), they included such gems as: "how many sites have metal detectorists damaged in the UK?" Answer number one, ask the PAS. But that was no good, they'd never have told him even if they knew the answer (and do they?). So I sat down and did some thinking how to answer ("Nobody really knows, but look at this, if...."). I'll post it up here one day, but even a conservative estimate (didn't want to be quoted giving an alarmist one) was a very depressing and very frightening prognosis. And the Brits do nothing as a major part of the archaeological archaeological record is emptied onto eBay...

Work with the Archie's (sic), and They Stab You in the Back

.
A new artefact hunting club with a misleading web presence has been created in Gloucestershire by a guy called Steve Taylor [DetectingforGold]. It is called the "Portable Antiquities society: Specialists in Land Surveying and Detecting". Of course it is nothing to do with land surveying, but that sounds technical and will no doubt fool some landowners. This 'society' is called:

Cheltenham's newest historical research organisation. A society put together to enhance our knowledge of the past and conserve and protect our ancient history.

The blurb on the home page is also notable. After telling the reader that the county is "steeped in history" which "lies hidden beneath our feet", it then alleges that must of this "history" is now "being lost forever" and this is due to the advent (sic) of modern farm machinery. But all is not lost:

The Portable Antiquities society have had remarkable success in finding some of Gloucestershire's most remarkable treasure's, which includes the 'The Poulton Hoard', Eldersfield brooch, and many more, some of which are now on display in the Corinium Museum, Cirencester. Our team can offer an unbeatable service, in surveying and detecting hidden objects, from water pipes to missing parts from tractors. Our interests are to map out the history of Gloucestershire, and record human migration throughout the centuries, and publish the information on a national database.

Well the PAs (note the misleading acronym) cant have actually found anything much since it was only formed earlier this month (9th April). So that's the first deception. Now, readers will no doubt remember that metal detectorists often claim that their machines do not penetrate very far ("six to eight inches" they insist) so how on earth can they seek pipes with such machines? A pipe just six inches down in the soil can be found by probing and digging, can't it? But of course that is just an excuse. As is "our interests are to map out the history of Gloucestershire", they are not so much interested in mapping as hoiking out collectable artefacts as they are shown doing in one of Mr Taylor's videos made in Suffolk. Note there is not a word about that aspect of metal detecting anywhere in this text (!).

But what on earth is this nonsense about recording "human migration throughout the centuries"? This is Gloucestershire they are talking about, not the Oregon Trail. If they consider that migrationism is a dominant paradigm in archaeology I can only assume they've picked up a 1929 archaeology textbook at a car boot sale for 5p and are basing their knowledge on that. What nonsense.

I guess the reader is intended to infer from the phrasing of the last bit that this PAs is the actual host of this "national database" where this "information" (about migration through the centuries) is "published". And lo and behold a search on the internet will reveal just such a PAS database, with a strap-line in black with white lettering on the background. Now I am sure this is totally unintended and Steve Taylor simply did not think that people might confuse his new organization with a public-funded institution. But that does not mean that he should not rectify this oversight now it has been pointed out.

Especially as one gets the feeling that the whole thing is really nothing else but a front for some nasty anti-archaeological agitation. Look at the Diary of a Yobody about how the angry guy found a hoard and the FLO didn't come and collect it from him (read the Treasure Act and especially the Code of Practice sections 38-9 Mr Taylor, the finder is supposed to deliver it to the Coroner from whom he gets a receipt made out to him). Then he only got 17 000 quid for it and had to share it with the landowner. Those back-stabbing "archaeologists" are to blame! There's a video all about it. Don't be misled by the artefact hunter's gentlemanly demeanour and uneven hint of a Home Counties accent, this guy is a trouble-making oik like many of the rest.

Steve Taylor is one of those who went off on an archaeological-metal-plundering holiday in Suffolk in 2008 and made a candid video on it. One to which I posted a link on this blog a while back (because it showed how many finds a detector user can make in a few days). As a result of his reaction to that, he is relegated to my metal-detectorist-ass (as in UKEng 'donkey') ghetto blog, here, here and here. With regard to the aims of the PA Society suggested on their website, note what he informs me in the latter one:

You seem to be a collision course for self destruction on your private war against UK detectorists. I have now instructed the various Museums I have loaned items too over a number of years, to return them, because of your personal attracts (sic) on the hobby. Many of these museums did not have the funding to purchase these items and were loaned by myself for the public to view. I have told them why I am now asking for the items to be returned, and I now hope to turn the archaeological community against yourself. Regard Steve Taylor

Whether or not this action turned the archaeologists of Britain against me I could not say - but as I commented at the time:

As for taking "his" objects from public display as a reaction to me discussing a video he made of a detecting holiday in Suffolk on a blog, then really that simply demonstrates the depth of the public responsibility detectorists like Mr Taylor display. What were his motives in loaning them to museums in the first place - to offset criticism by archaeologists, or to make a contribution to public knowledge? I wonder if he will be contacting the landowners on whose land these things were found to explain the reasons why he is now not sharing them with the public? We still have no news whether the finds from Suffolk we saw in the video reached the PAS or local museum.

The "Work with the Archie's and they stab you in the back" video is here and on You Tube here. What else can one say? It's not exactly "working with the archie[ologist]s" to report a Treasure find, its what the law obliges any finder (with or without a metal detector) to do. If you don't you are a criminal, what the metal detectorist parlance calls a "nighthawk".

Mr Taylor alleges he was being "stalked" by an archaeologist, and when he got a FOI search done, he found out he'd been suspected of being a nighthawk but he says innocently "I've never been out detecting at night" [shifts gaze from camera, looks at ground].

Do have a look at the comments to the You Tube video.

UPDATE Saturday: Mr Taylor wrote to me, among other things thanking me for the "publicity" for his views, but I note that he has now made the "diary of a Hoard" visible to registered members only, so obviously he is not all that interested in members of the public reading what he wrote. He says he searches 110 farms in the county - so the information must be fair flooding into the local HER from that "national data base" as he "maps" all those human migrations or whatever it is he claims to be doing on the basis of his artefact-digging.

The text on the "about us" page is new, it was not there last night when I wrote (in yer 'aste, y'forgot the spellcheck, Steve).

The Portable Antiquities Society Search Team

Our society is dedicated to the research and discovery of our lost past, using sophisticated electronic aids in locating small metalic objects, from the plough soil. The area's that we study would never be excavated archaeologically by the County archaeologists due to time and cost, but our team with many years of experience undertake this work in our spare time at no cost to you. We hope to illustate and record finds from Gloucestershire on our national data base which can be shared by all, for future generations. We are always happy to give talks to local historic societies and organisations and will bring along a selection of finds for you to look at and hold, to bring the past alive. We adhere to a strick code of conduct, liasing with local museums to share any knowledge of a particular areas. that's nice then. Which "strick kode" wuld that be? And YOUR national database would be where, exactly? (No link given).

"Then alot": comment rejected

.
Beats me why they bother trying, comment rejected:

Jackoface has left a new comment on your post "Metal Detector treasures: "Get A New Site"": So true. I dont know who started the movement on get the newest and latest metal detector if you want to do good. You can use a bottom price detector and do just as good if not better then alot of the espensive ones. http://www.metalplunderers.org

Not there real a'dress of coorse.

If you want to "do good", you don't buy any metal detector at all. Ask the PAS.

Metal Detecting Discussed Frankly in Heritage Journal

.
Heritage Action's Heritage Journal is the place to go for some sensible words written about artefact hunting ("metal detecting"). I recommend the discussion here, the latter part. Nigel Swift is a great writer, this post in particular a good example of Swiftian style drawing on a great deal of reflection. The other reason why I was so taken by it was Peter Twinn's statements. Pete and I go back a long way, way back to when I used to "engage metal detectorists" in discussion. He was one of a number of keyboard-tapping tekkies with whom in the old days I used to have some huge online verbal punchups which I found enormously helpful in challenging and shaping my views on artefact hunting. Pete was a good opponents as he was a better writer than most of the rest. He was also unusual in the "metal detecting" world as he was encouraged through his contact with the PAS to go and study archaeology. It is quite gratifying to see Pete now writing things which have me nodding my head in agreement (rather than shaking it in disbelief). Sadly he is the only one of that original group of stalwart naysayers on the metal detecting forums that seems to have shown any real change of approach in that decade or so. PAS was set up at great cost to instil "best practice"; it has worked in the case of Pete Twinn and a handful of others (Corinne being another notable example), why has it not really worked at all with the other few thousand? The HJournl discussion gives a few views on that topic. Worth reading.

Celebrating Easter in Central England by a bit of Plundering

.
How do you fancy spending Easter Saturday and Sunday in 80 acres of bean fields? Bean fields with a history? Centrally placed in England, never been searched before - except the time last Christmas when the artefact grabfest removed from the archaeological record lots of nice collectable and saleable finds including a nice couple of nicely enamelled Roman brooches, a nice votive axe and many more really nice bits. That's nice. In fact so nice that at the time of writing there are several nice archaeological trenches in an adjacent field. Apparently the site figures quite prominently in the Historic Environment Record which has nicely been made available for artefact hunters to take their pick. There was an archaeological survey here in the 1990s, "The Raunds Area Project”, so that's nice because it means artefact hunters will know precisely which areas to target. Which is nice. There's a nice big Bronze Age henge here, so maybe some nice votive metalwork in the offing, which will be nice. Then there is a nice Iron Age settlement here with roundhouses. So that means there'll be some more nice finds to hoik out. There's ring ditches visible on the aerial photographs, so you can even do a nice bit of grave-robbing if they are levelled barrows. That's nice, isn't it? The site is situated next to a nice old Roman track, so there's bound to be nice stuff that was dropped or lost there (or maybe "hoards hidden on the way to battle", eh?). This road was later used to link the deserted village of Mallows Cotton to the deserted village of West Cotton which then linked to Raunds or Rants as it was in the Doomsday Book. That's nice, because the bean fields run right up to the edge of one of those deserted medieval villages (but there will be archaeological material to be had beyond the edge) and they actually cover the site of West Cotton, so there will be nice crotal bells and other nice Medieval metalwork to dig out galore, lots of nice hammered coins too no doubt. In fact so nice Central Plunderers are having another commercial artefact grabfest in those beanfields on Saturday. Don't forget to pay them the sixty quid and bring your metal detector.

Oh, if you find archaeological finds you do not want for your collection, do not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, rebury them where you found them for archaeologists to find and interpret, you must put them in the yellow bins to be provided and the rally organizers will take them away for melting down or dumping.

Oh, and by the way, the farm is part of some pesky environmental stewardship scheme financed out of public funds, but that's OK, it does not cover the historic environment at all (hooray!! That's nice) but just to keep up the appearance of being environmentally conscious don't go on the grass margins or wooded areas - at least not while anyone is looking. These are protected areas and are out of bounds. But all the rest of the fields are fair game. Come and help empty the archaeology out onto eBay.

The PAS FLO will not be present, she said she has had enough of legitimising rampant plundering of known archaeological sites every weekend. She's staying at home and catching up with her reading and gardening. Might go out for a meal in the evening with some friends instead of sitting in a dark damp field with beer-swilling foul-mouthed blokes.

[The rally is, unfortunately, very real. I made up the bit about the FLO, she's probably going to attend the rally, they generally do, it's how they boost the finds in the database numbers - through the rifling of sites like those at Raunds - a very significant project in its time, but checking its results will be near impossible by the time this lot have hoovered and dug their selfish way across part of the site, taking away the best bits, discarding the rest. When is Britain going to put a stop to this manner of treating areas of archaeological importance?]

Glemsford Detector Users: Nighthawking Down?

.

Glemsford is a small village with an interesting plan near Sudbury, just over the river from Essex. There was a commercial artefact hunting rally held here a while back in the course of which an unusual Roman lantern was found. It was promptly dug out there and then by the tekkies arousing some criticism in the archaeological world and media. In an effort to justify this, detectorists were claiming that the local archaeological FLO had been invited to the rally and had "failed to turn up" but the rally went ahead anyway. The justification for hoiking it out and not waiting until a properly equipped team could get there was that other detector-using artefact hunters could come and hoik it out, either legally, as one local detectorist Sukisal put it:

that farmer had given quite a few detectorists permission to search his land, my friends being some of them. [...] So, no it wouldn't still be there if left for 'proper' excavation.

[These are the "responsible" ones I suppose].
Or they would come illegally:

There is a well known nighthawk or two that resides in that very village, and I can tell you they were at that rally, I saw them.

Let us just note that a moment, a well-known nighthawk "or two" lives in Glemsford, and responsible detector user Sukisal knows about this and can recognise him even.


So-called nighthawks are criminals, breaking laws connected with both property rights and heritage protection. Has Ms Sukisal done anything with her knowledge, like reporting these people to the relevant authorities, or has she kept quiet, concealing knowledge of a crime? Were these particular individuals reported to Oxford Archaeology when they were researching the Nighthawking Report? What about the other "nighthawks" the same Suffolk detectorist reported active in the area around Icklingham (not at Icklingham, but the neighbouring areas) the other side of the county? We may also remember Norman Smith saying about Nighthawkers up north (but not only) that "we know who they are, but do nowt about it...".

Is the alleged decline in the amount of nighthawking going on in Britain that was so loudly trumpeted a while back due to the fact that when compiling their report Oxford Archaeology was primarily (and rather naively) reliant on metal detectorists 'shopping' fellow detector users as one of their basic sources of information, but the latter in fact were reluctant to pass on the information they have? The detecting forums are full of mentions of "nighthawks" that are active in the regions around where the "responsible" guys do their artefact hunting and hoiking-out. They are cited as the primary reason why ("responsible") artefact hunters all over the country "cannot" report their finds promptly and accurately. If we listen to metal detectorist chatter it is difficult to see any evidence that this problem is any less significant a threat to the archaeological heritage than it was fifteen years ago. I suppose the real question is when assessing the truth of the matter we have to consider whether we should pay more heed to the anonymous compiler sitting behind a desk in Oxford or the group of people not able to write such posh English, but actually out there in the fields in all weathers and in direct contact with the information on the ground. They certainly do not see the problem as in any way reduced in significance.
.