Some Aspects of the Collection-Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record in England and Wales (original) (raw)
Related papers
Archaeology, Collectors and Preservation: a Reply to David Gill
Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 2010
We have become accustomed to assessing both the PAS and Treasure Act in terms of important finds preserved in national collections and the numbers of recorded pieces of information about objects found by members of the public. This however conflates the results of two different processes, the first is accidental finds made by members of the public going about their everyday lives, while the second source of these objects is from the deliberate exploitation of the archaeological record as a source of collectables for entertainment and profit. While the first is wholly uncontroversial, the latter involves a complex of issues connected with the way the archaeological record is treated and managed. David Gill however questions the degree to which a reporting system like TA/ PAS prevents damage to the archaeological record from the activities of artefact hunters and collectors. His text is an important contribution to the ongoing wider discussion of these complex and difficult issues.
A Largerlof (ed.), 2013, 'Who Cares? Perspectives on Public Awareness, Participation and Protection in Archaeological Heritage Management', EAC Occassional Paper 8
In most European countries metal detecting is prohibited or restricted by law, portable antiquities (archaeological small finds) must be reported, and the state claims ownership of all finds discovered. In contrast, metal detecting in England and Wales is largely unregulated, finders have few obligations to report finds, and the categories of finds that can be claimed by the state are limited. (The countries most similar to England and Wales regarding metal detecting are Scotland and Denmark, where metal detecting is legal, though finders are obliged to report a wider range of archaeological material.) This might be considered a "treasure hunter's" utopia and an archaeologist's nightmare! However, this seemingly strange state of affairs has actually led to more than 820,000 archaeological objects being reported by the public (most discovered by metal detectorists) and recorded by archaeologists since 1997, when the Treasure Act 1996 became law and the Portable Antiquities Scheme (a project to record archaeological objects found by the public) was established. Fifteen years on, this short paper seeks to look at the success and limitations of both the Act and the Scheme.
Artefact collecting: creating or destroying the archaeological record?
Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia, 2020
This paper examines some of the arguments used by archaeologists in favour of collaborating with artefact hunters and collectors who claim that these activities produce information that is useful for archaeological research and is a form of public engagement with archaeology. It takes as a case study records of 48 600 medieval artefacts removed from archaeological contexts by artefact hunters and recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales. The past and potential uses of these records as an archaeological source are objectively reviewed, together with an assessment of the degree to which they provide mitigation of the damage caused to the otherwise unthreatened archaeological record. It is concluded that, although information can be obtained by studying records of findspots of addressed artefacts such as coins, in general the claims made in support of professional archaeological collaboration with this kind of activity prove to be false.
'Like stray words or letters that have dropped out of the Book of Time, [artefacts] themselves individually reveal nothing, but when placed alongside of other words and letters from the same book, they gradually form, under the fingers of archaeologists, into lines and sentences which reveal secret and stirring legends of the workings of the human mind and human hand in ages of which we have no other existing memorials’ (Simpson, 1861, in Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 1892: ii) When Sir James Simpson spoke these words in an address to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1861, the Scots Common Law of Treasure Trove was already long-established in ensuring artefacts found by members of the public were made available for the benefit of the nation in museum display. Today, the Treasure Trove system faces unprecedented challenges through the number of finds made by metal detectorists, and current financial pressures on the heritage sector. This dissertation aims to explore the crucial differences in its operation with neighbouring England, assess its effectiveness in ensuring the reporting of artefactual finds made through metal detecting, and suggest potential pathways for its development in today’s economic climate.
Portable Antiquities Collectors and an Alter Archaeology of Viking England
Acta Archaeologica Pultuskiensia Vol. V ("Meetings at the borders: Studies dedicated to Professor Władysław Duczko" Edited by Joanna Popielska-Grzybowska and Jadwiga Iwaszczuk in co-operation with Bożena Józefów-Czerwińska), 2016
This text discusses current policies on Collection-Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record in England and Wales, and the Portable Antiquities Scheme that has been set up to deal with the results. It is argued that as a means of mitigation, this body is failing to keep pace with the damage. In the light of repeated claims made by British heritage professionals about the alleged 'benefits' accruing from partnership with 'responsible metal detectorists' (artefact hunters and collectors), the text breifly examines the degree to which the Scheme and its 'database' of recorded collectables can be used as archaeological data and as a research tool, taking the evidence for the Viking period as a case study.
Thousands of artefacts are found every year by the public the world over, and many are sold or destroyed. How are we to ensure that these discoveries can take their place in archaeological research (Editorial, December 2004)? For some, legislation, state control and strong penalties are the best or only option. Here, the co-ordinator of the English Portable Antiquities Scheme makes the case for a voluntary code, led by co-operation, education and reward.
This paper looks at the evolution of a new approach to an old problem-that of protecting the heritage of moveable archaeological objects-'portable antiquities'-in England and Wales. It sets out a brief history of attempts to bring forward legislation to protect such finds, charts the rise of metal detecting as an activity and describes the successful process of changing government policy through the Treasure Act 1996. This led to the Portable Antiquities Scheme which has now received full government funding. The paper looks at how this was achieved through the development of what has been described as the largest community archaeology project in the country, which is starting to change public attitudes towards objects from the past. These two initiatives have in fact started to lead to a change in public attitude towards material from the past.