The so-called Marcus Aurelius and the so-called Ryedale hoard

The bronze bust of a figure identified as the emperor Marcus Aurelius formed part of a 'hoard' discovered in a field in Ryedale, Yorkshire (Jonathan Chadwick, "Incredible Marcus Aurelius bust is among a treasure trove of 2,000-year-old Roman bronze artefacts dug up by metal detectorists in Yorkshire and tipped to sell for £100,000 at auction", Mail Online 21 April 2021). The find is described:

"The items were discovered last year by metal detectorists James Spark and Mark Didlick in a field in Ryedale, North Yorkshire."

In other words, during 2020, the pandemic year, these finds were made. Specifically the find was made in May 2020 (George Buksmann, "Incredible 'nationally important' Roman bronze artefacts discovered in Ryedale expected to sell for £90,000", Scarborough Evening News 29 April 2021). This has been identified as 24-25 May; the location was near Ampleforth [see here].

Url: https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1013510 PAS record number: YORYM-870B0E
Object type: Assemblage
Broadperiod: Roman
County of discovery: North Yorkshire
Stable url: https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1013510

Adam Staples from Hansons speculates:

"They were interred in the ground together so they should stay together. We think they were buried as a ritual deposit, as part of a Roman religious process and an offering to the gods."

Do we know that this 'hoard' was interred together? What is the archaeological context? What is the evidence that this was a 'ritual deposit'?

The hoard is due to be sold at auction by Hansons today.

| |

PAS Finds and Lincolnshire

© David Gill

I have been working through the RSA Heritage Index data and thought that it would be interesting to look at the reported archaeological finds for Lincolnshire (including the two unitary authorities of North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire). These data are derived from PAS. Over 83,000 finds were recorded reflecting the high level of activity in the county.

| |

PAS and Finds in Eastern England

© David Gill, 2021

I have been doing some work on the results of the RSA Heritage Index (2020) with a focus, in part, on eastern England. The Index includes a section on 'reported archaeological finds' drawn from the PAS dataset. It becomes immediately obvious that considerably more finds are being reported for Norfolk and Suffolk than for the four other counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, and Hertfordshire. (Looking outside the region, West Sussex and East Sussex have a combined total of 27,000 finds; and the whole of Wales just over 63,000 finds.) 

What does this mean?

The recorders for Norfolk and Suffolk are to be praised for their recording of over 180,000 finds. The other four counties barely make 64,000 together. 

Does this mean that more finds are made and reported in Norfolk and Suffolk?

Does this mean that finds are under-reported (and therefore not recorded) in Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex and Hertfordshire?

Is the implication that there is more activity in East Anglia than other parts of the region?

How does such information distort the way that these largely de-contextualised finds are used for research projects? 

Portable Finds and Roman Britain

My review of 50 Roman Finds from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (2020) has appeared in the latest number of the Journal of Art Crime. Several issues are explored including the accuracy of the find-spots.

Some of the finds have been derived from agricultural work, but most are obtained as a result of metal-detecting, some from more than 0.6 m below the plough soil. How much contextual information has been lost when hoards are removed from the ground? What scientific information has been derived about the so-called 'Gloucestershire Licking Dog Hoard'?

The so-called Crosby Garrett helmet is discussed along with the reported post-find investigation. Sadly this significant find is not on permanent public display. Why not?

I wonder if some of the finds are derived from Grand Tour collections rather than providing evidence of the Roman occupation of Britain. The garnet head of a philosopher may have been derived from Oxnead Hall, home of the Paston family in Norfolk. (Two other databases place it in Huntingdonshire or Oxfordshire.) A copper-alloy balsamarium could have derived from the collection of the antiquary Bryan Faussett. 

This study suggests that there are potential intellectual consequences of using this type of material for interpreting the study of Roman Britain.

Reference

Gill, D. W. J. 2020. Review of John Pearce and Sally Worrell, 50 Roman Finds from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (Stroud: Amberley, 2020). Journal of Art Crime 24: 69–74.

"Beating sites to death"

Policy decisions for protecting archaeological sites need to be informed by carefully argued positions based on data. Dr Sam Hardy has produced an important study, “Metal detecting for cultural objects until ‘there is nothing left’: The potential and limits of digital data, netnographic data and market data for analysis”. Arts 7, 3 (2018) [online]. This builds on Hardy's earlier research.

Readers should note Hardy's conclusion about his findings: "they corroborate the detecting community’s own perception that they are ‘beat[ing these sites] to death’".

Pieterjan Deckers, Andres Dobat, Natasha Ferguson, Stijn Heeren, Michael Lewis, and Suzie Thomas may wish to reflect on whether or not their own position is endangering the finite archaeological record. 

Abstract
This methodological study assesses the potential for automatically generated data, netnographic data and market data on metal-detecting to advance cultural property criminology. The method comprises the analysis of open sources that have been identified through multilingual searches of Google Scholar, Google Web and Facebook. Results show significant differences between digital data and market data. These demonstrate the limits of restricted quantitative analysis of online forums and the limits of extrapolation of market data with “culture-bound” measures. Regarding the validity of potential quantitative methods, social networks as well as online forums are used differently in different territories. Restricted quantitative analysis, and its foundational assumption of a constant relationship between the size of the largest online forum and the size of the metal-detecting population, are unsound. It is necessary to conduct extensive quantitative analysis, then to make tentative “least worst” estimates. As demonstrated in the sample territories, extensive analyses may provide empirical data, which revise established estimates. In this sample, they corroborate the detecting community’s own perception that they are ‘beat[ing these sites] to death’.

Michael Lewis on Metal Detecting

Michael Lewis has been talking about metal-detecting as part of the V&A Culture in Crisis Programme. He has stressed the benefit about searching ploughsoil. But what about the findspot of the Lenborough Hoard?

Lewis moves to discuss why the metal-detecting community has not signed up to the revised Code of Practice.

He touches on the issue of possible "criminal" elements who are out to loot archaeological site, and give the "hobby" a tarnished reputation.

The interviewer, Laura Jones, asked about the loss of context as a result of metal-detecting. Lewis talks about finds from below the ploughsoil, and suggests that there needs to be immediate archaeological help. He mentions the Watlington Hoard and the wait needed before the excavation could take place.

Lewis discusses the Staffordshire Hoard (but see here) as one of his favourite finds.

It would have been interesting to hear Lewis talk about the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet and the accuracy of its reported find-spot.

Lewis and Jones fail to engage with concerns about the damage being sustained to the archaeological record in England and Wales. Jones even suggests that people at home will be "wanting to be part of this", and that the Scheme actively protects the archaeological heritage of England and Wales, an issue directly addressed by the forum piece in the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology.

Debating the Portable Antiquities Scheme

Back in 2010 I was invited to write a forum piece, "The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales?", for Papers from the Institute of Archaeology.

In the light of the discussion around Sam Hardy's analysis of open-source data on metal-detecting for cultural property, I thought that it would be interesting to see how the forum piece has been cited by using data from the publisher's website, Research Gate, and Google Scholar.

Excluding self-citations, articles are as follows:

• Campbell, Peter B. (2013) The Illicit Antiquities Trade as a Transnational Criminal Network: Characterizing and Anticipating Trafficking of Cultural Heritage, International Journal of Cultural Property 20(02), pp. 113-153 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739113000015 
• Daubney, A. (2017) Floating culture: the unrecorded antiquities of England and Wales. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(9), pp. 785-799.
• Efrat, A. (2012) Getting Governments to Cooperate against Looting: Insights from the American and British Experience. Journal of Art Crime, 8, p. 31 [reproduced in Noah Charney (ed.), Art Crime: Terrorists, Tomb Raiders, Forgers and Thieves. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).
• Frieman, C.J. and Wilkin, N. (2016) “The Changing of the Guards”?: British Prehistoric Collections and Archaeology in the Museums of the Future. Museum Worlds, 4(1), pp. 33-50.
• Grove, Louise (2013) Heritocide? Defining and Exploring Heritage Crime, Public Archaeology, 12:4, 242-254, DOI: 10.1179/1465518714Z.00000000046
• Grove Louise, Thomas S. (2014) What’s the Future for Heritage Crime Research?. In: Grove Louise, Thomas S. (eds) Heritage Crime. Palgrave Macmillan, London
• Grove, Louise, Adam Daubney, and Alasdair Booth (2018) Identifying sites at risk from illicit metal detecting: from CRAVED to HOPPER, International Journal of Heritage Studies 2018 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1475408
• Hardy, S.A. (2017) Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property: Estimation of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods, Cogent Social Sciences 3(1), 2017 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1298397 
• Rovet, G., Compagnon, G., Minvielle-Larousse, N., Champeyrol, S. and Rué, M. (2016) Chasse au trésor et pillage du patrimoine archéologique: un enjeu de médiation. In Daniel Jacobi, Fabrice Denis (eds.), Les médiations de l’archéologie. Editions universitaires de Dijon 
• Stevenson, Alice (2016) Conflict antiquities and conflicted antiquities: addressing commercial sales of legally excavated artefacts, Antiquity 90(349), pp. 229-236 DOI: http://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.188 
• Temiño, I.R. (2016) Rational Grounds for Dialogue Between Archaeologists and Metal Detectorists in Spain. Open Archaeology, 2(1).
• Thomas, S. (2013) Multiple-role actors in the movement of cultural property: Metal-detector users. In Current Trends in Archaeological Heritage Preservation: National and international Perspectives. Proceedings of the international conference, Iasi, Romania (pp. 117-124).
• Thomas, S.E. (2014) The Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales. SKAS.

My response to the other forum contributions is cited in a slightly different way (though Daubney, Grove and Hardy were clearly aware of both contributions to the forum piece):

• Daubney, A. (2017) Floating culture: the unrecorded antiquities of England and Wales. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(9), pp. 785-799.
• Grove, Louise (2013) Heritocide? Defining and Exploring Heritage Crime, Public Archaeology, 12:4, 242-254, DOI: 10.1179/1465518714Z.00000000046
• Hardy, S.A. (2017) Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property: Estimation of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods, Cogent Social Sciences 3(1), 2017 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1298397 
• Rasmussen, Josephine Munch  (2014) Reply to Comments from Suzie Thomas, Martin Mesicek, Raimund Karl, Mads Ravn, Maria Lingström, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 47:2, pp. 212-217, DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2014.957236
• Wilson, P. and M. Harrison (2013) Three years on from 'The Nighthawking Survey': innovations in heritage protection, Internet Archaeology 33. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.33.7

The responses to the forum paper are cited as follows:

Trevor Austin

• Hardy, S.A. (2017) Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property: Estimation of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods, Cogent Social Sciences 3(1), 2017 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1298397

Paul Barford

• Deckers, Pieterjan, Andres Dobat, Natasha Ferguson, Stijn Heeren, Michael Lewis, and Suzie Thomas (2018) The Complexities of Metal Detecting Policy and Practice: A Response to Samuel Hardy, ‘Quantitative Analysis of Open-Source Data on Metal Detecting for Cultural Property’ (Cogent Social Sciences 3, 2017), Open Archaeology 4, 1.
• Hardy, S.A. (2017) Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property: Estimation of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods, Cogent Social Sciences 3(1), 2017 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1298397

Gabe Moshenska

• Grove, Louise, Adam Daubney, and Alasdair Booth (2018) Identifying sites at risk from illicit metal detecting: from CRAVED to HOPPER, International Journal of Heritage Studies 2018 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1475408

Colin Renfrew

• No citations

Sally Worrell

• Capper, Morn  & Marc Scully (2016) Ancient objects with modern meanings: museums, volunteers, and the Anglo-Saxon ‘Staffordshire Hoard’ as a marker of twenty-first century regional identity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39:2, pp. 181-203, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2016.1105996
• Gill, David W. J. Gill (2014) Context matters: The So-called Crosby Garrett Helmet, Journal of Art Crime 11, pp. 53-59  
• Sim, David N.  & Jaime Kaminski (2017) The Production and Deposition of the Guisborough Helmet, Arms & Armour, 14:1, pp. 1-33, DOI: 10.1080/17416124.2017.1307596

Metal-detecting in context and open-source analysis

In 2017 Sam Hardy wrote 'Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property: Estimation of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods', Cogent Social Sciences, 3:1 (2017) [DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2017.1298397].

More recently there has been a response: Pieterjan Deckers, Andres Dobat, Natasha Ferguson, Stijn Heeren, Michael Lewis, and Suzie Thomas , 'The Complexities of Metal Detecting Policy and Practice: A Response to Samuel Hardy, ‘Quantitative Analysis of Open-Source Data on Metal Detecting for Cultural Property’ (Cogent Social Sciences 3, 2017)', Open Archaeology 4, 1 [Online]. Their unconvincing paper made an attempt to dismiss Hardy's careful research. 

Sam Hardy has now written an extended response, 'a response to a response on metal-detecting and open-source analysis', Conflict Archaeology (26 July 2018). Deckers et al. will need to revise their confrontational response.

Reported archaeological finds in Essex

Source: RSA Heritage Index derived from PAS.

I have been working through the data included in the RSA Heritage Index for Essex. The section on 'Museums, Archives, and Artefacts' includes an element 'Archaeological finds reported' derived from the Portable Antiquities Scheme. This presents just over 16,000 finds for the different parts of the county. (This is dwarfed by more than 60,000 finds reported for Suffolk.)

These finds contribute to the overall heritage score for each of these administrative districts in Essex (and other parts of the UK).

Responsible metal-detecting: a revised code of practice

© David Gill

The annual heritage day at the RSA earlier this month provided an opportunity to discuss the new Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales (2017) on an informal basis.

The endorsements of the revised code are notable by the absence of certain organisations:

• Amgueddfa Cymru - National Museum of Wales / PAS Cymru, 
• Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers, 
• British Museum / Portable Antiquities Scheme, 
• Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 
• Council for British Archaeology, 
• Country Land & Business Association, 
• Institute for Archaeology (University College London), 
• Historic England, 
• National Farmers Union, 
• Royal Commission on the Historical & Ancient Monuments of Wales, 
• Society of Museum Archaeologists.

The endorsement by UCL's Institute of Archaeology is interesting given the forum piece on metal-detecting that appeared in the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology (and that is largely uncited by members of PAS although is noted by archaeologists working in Spain).

We are reminded that "being responsible" means:

Working on ground that has already been disturbed (such as ploughed land or that which has formerly been ploughed), and only within the depth of ploughing. If detecting takes place on pasture, be careful to ensure that no damage is done to the archaeological value of the land, including earthworks. Avoid damaging stratified archaeological deposits (that is to say, finds that seem to be in the place where they were deposited in antiquity) and minimise any ground disturbance through the use of suitable tools and by reinstating any ground and turf as neatly as possible.

This is a timely reminder as we approach the third anniversary of the removal of the "Lenborough Hoard". Members of PAS could, perhaps, address the five points highlighted by the Lenborough case.

Public Archaeology and Looting Antiquities

2017

A new volume, Key Concepts in Public Archaeology, edited by Gabriel Moschenska of UCL has been published (UCL Press) [open access pdf].

Readers of LM will find some of the chapters of interest.

Paul Burtenshaw ("Economics in public archaeology", pp. 31–42) touches on how to reduce looting and preserve sites by showing the economic benefits of heritage through tourism.

Don Henson ("Archaeology and education", pp. 43–59) shows how education can be used to reduce the risk of looting.

Roger Bland, Michael Lewis, Daniel Pett, Ian Richardson, Katherine Robbins, and Rob Webley write on "The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales" (pp. 107–121). They have a section on the Staffordshire Hoard with the subtitle, "archaeology captures the public imagination". The authors respond to criticisms (without citing any studies; see the Forum discussion in Papers from the Institute of Archaeology apparently unknown to the authors) that the scheme has not stopped illegal metal-detecting, described by the term "nighthawking". It would have been helpful for the authors to have discussed the case of the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet (but discussed by me in a later chapter) or the Lenborough Hoard.

I have a chapter on "The market for ancient art" (pp. 187–200). This includes sections on the scale of the market, suggesting that there have been over-estimates used. I also discuss metal-detecting, the impact of the Medici Conspiracy, and the fabrication of object histories.

Floating Culture: unrecorded archaeological finds

Display in Lincoln (c) David Gill

Adam Daubney, the FLO for Lincolnshire, has written on the unrecorded finds that are obtained via metal-detecting ("Floating culture: the unrecorded antiquities of England and Wales", International Journal of Heritage Studies [2017] 1-15 [DOI]). Readers of LM will know that this is a topic that has featured here. Daubney accepts in his opening paragraph: "loss of archaeological knowledge also occurs on an arguably far wider scale through the non-reporting and subsequent sale of legitimately discovered archaeological material, especially in countries such as the U.K. where there is no legal obligation to report certain classes of finds". There has to be an acceptance that under-reporting of finds is a failure of the Portable Antiquities Scheme to engage with the metal-detecting communities ("it has proved impossible to shift the entrenched ideas of some non-reporters, particularly those who were active during the ‘detector wars’ of the 1970s and 1980s ").

I am pleased that Daubney makes this comment in response to my paper (and responses) in the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology that so far appears to have escaped citation by a member of PAS (and he overlooks my main forum paper in preference to my response to the responses): "To this extent we might concede to Gill’s comment that ‘recording antiquities is not the same as protecting archaeological sites’".

But Daubney has been selective. What is his response to the finding of the so-called Crosby-Garrett helmet (even if it was not in Cumbria)? What about the implications of the uncovering of the Lenborough Hoard?

What is needed is a wider debate about the need to protect the fragile archaeological record in England and Wales.

Is PAS transforming our knowledge of the past in England and Wales?

There is a new online book, Key Concepts in Public Archaeology, edited by Gabriel Moshenska (UCL Press, 2017) [Introduction]. Among the essays (and not all have been published on the site: I am told that there will be second batch) is one by Roger Bland, Michael Lewis, Daniel Pett, Ian Richardson, Katherine Robbins and Rob Webley on "The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales". It includes a section on the Staffordshire Hoard (though the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet and the Lenborough Hoard do not feature). The authors note that the hoard "appeals to a wide and diverse audience".

There is a discussion of the recording of finds, though no indication of the percentage of finds that are left unrecorded. The report touches on heritage crime:

It has sometimes been said as a criticism of PAS that it has not stopped illegal metal detecting in England and Wales, but this is for the simple fact that it was not intended to. This is an enduring problem and PAS staff are working closely with English Heritage’s Heritage Crime Initiative, which is run by a police inspector on secondment.

This is presumably an unsourced reference to the Forum piece for the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology entitled: "The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales?" (available online). (I am informed that senior members of PAS were invited to respond but declined.) Or the allusion could be to other discussions and debates. Who knows? It is telling that the authors continue:

This has had considerable success in targeting illegal detector users, known as ‘nighthawks’. However, it is important to put nighthawking in perspective: a survey commissioned by English Heritage in 2008 found that on two measures (the numbers of scheduled sites attacked by illegal detector users and the number of archaeological units that reported nighthawking incidences on their excavations), the number of cases has declined since 1995, when a previous survey was carried out (Dobinson and Denison 1995; Oxford Archaeology 2009).

Note that the most recent reference is for 2009 to the "Nighthawking" report (and see comments here). A review article I prepared for Antiquity (2015) raised this very issue and highlighted contemporary examples of unauthorised digging on scheduled sites (online). Are the authors of the article unwilling to draw attention to such activities?

The ineffectiveness of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act is noted.

The article makes mention of the 8,000-10,000 metal-detectorists who contribute to the reporting of finds ("contributor base"). This figures relates to a number Roger Bland produced in 2010. Does it need to be updated?

The article ends with a plea: "the PAS could benefit from more funding". But there needs to be a desire for the PAS to be seen to be protecting and preserving the rich archaeological heritage of England and Wales. And is this a realistic plea in an age of austerity?

Hoards: Hidden History

(2015)

I have noted Eleanor Ghey's important work on the (excavated) Beau Street hoard. Her illustrated British Museum Press volume, Hoards: Hidden History (London, 2015) was published last year.

The double-page spread for the introduction is a reminder of the sources of some of these hoards: 'Detector user found gold on first attempt'; 'Treasure-hunters dig up a fortune'; 'A chance sweep of a farm field unearthed the most important hoard of Roman gold and silver artefacts found in Britain'. Ghey's opening paragraph reminds us of 'a story of treasure hunters striking lucky after years of searching the land ...' (p. 10).

In her section on studying hoards Ghey reminds us: 'Archaeologists have come to realize that the key to understanding a hoard is usually held not in the group of objects itself but in its context, that is, the information held in the soil immediately around it and the evidence for human activity in the wider landscape' (p. 14). Her emphasis is one that should not be overlooked in the discussion over the use of metal-detecting.

There are four main chronological chapters: Prehistoric, Roman Britain, Anglo-Saxon and Viking, and Medieval and Modern. There is a discussion of the notorious Salisbury Hoard (pp. 34-35): 'the hoard was illegally excavated by metal-detectorists and sold to dealers; it had to be pieced together after much detective work by the British Museum and the police'.

There is an appendix in the Treasure Act 1996, asking 'What to do if you find Treasure?'

There is no mention of the Lenborough Hoard and its removal from its context.

The workings of PAS

I have valued my relationship with the British Museum over several decades. It has been a feature of my life for as long as I can remember.

I have read some of the material that has come out from Paul Barford's request for information. I hope that senior members of PAS will reflect on the way that staff have responded to awkward questions. Have they always reacted in a professional way? Could things have been handled differently?

The Lenborough Hoard and loss of knowledge

The Lenborough Hoard
Source: www.finds.org.uk

I noticed that The Times (London has covered the Lenborough Hoard (Jack Malvern, "Metal-detector row led to £1m Anglo Saxon coin hoard", 11 February 2015). Much of the story recycles the British Museum press release but it includes a section on Paul Barford, an "archaeological blogger". The Times draws attention to the information that has been lost by the scooping of the coins into a carrier bag.

The Lenborough Hoard and the future of PAS

Lenborough Hoard
Source: finds.org.uk (CC)

The Lenborough Hoard is now featured on the BBC ("Hoard of Anglo Saxon coins largest discovered under Treasure Act", 11 February 2015). It is essentially a recycled press release (see here), and even includes a mention of the alleged "excavation".

We should also note that Dr Roger Bland has suggested that the future of PAS is far from certain.

However, the head of the antiquities scheme that funds the finds, Roger Bland, said the future was looking uncertain because of budget reductions. 

"I'm not sure whether we're going to be able to renew the contracts for nine of the 32 posts that we've got in the scheme from the 1 April. 

"I'm quite concerned but I also feel that we've been in difficult places before and we've managed to keep going," he said.

Meanwhile Dr Daniel Pett of PAS has tweeted me a message.

@davidwjgill your post stating that there was an error with the PAS site is incorrect. You were searching our backup server (no images.)
— Daniel Pett (@portableant) February 11, 2015

This was no doubt in reaction to my post yesterday. My search arrived at a page so that when you clicked on the link you just saw code - and the image was one of Lego. I can only presume that the BM has set up their backup server so that the public (and search engines) can see it. Perhaps that is a loophole that should be closed.

Lenborough Hoard: update

Lenborough Hoard
Source: finds.org.uk (under CC)

There appeared to be a curious blip on the PAS website earlier today that meant the normal record was unavailable. I have checked again this evening and it is now all there [here].

The circumstances provided on the website appears as "Weekend Wanderers Xmas Dig". (For further images see here.)

We also need to remember that under The Treasure Act (1996) 'the occupier of the land' can receive part of the reward.

The amazing archaeological hoard

I see that the Lenborough Hoard features prominently in the press release for the launch of the Treasure Annual Report 2012 [press release, "Largest Anglo-Saxon coin hoard tops list of latest nationwide treasure finds". 10 February 2015].

... the largest Anglo Saxon coin hoard found since the Treasure Act began is announced. This amazing archaeological hoard of around 5,200 coins was discovered in the village of Lenborough, Buckinghamshire. This discovery highlights the ongoing importance of the Portable Antiquities Scheme and Treasure Act in ensuring that the most important finds are secured for the nation.

Neil MacGregor also comments on the hoard:

More Treasure finds are being reported than ever before and unique objects are documented and conserved for study and public display, such as the recent find of the largest Anglo-Saxon coin hoard recorded since the Treasure Act of 1996. These achievements are a testament to the network of Finds Liaison Officers, who play a key role in ensuring archaeological finds found by the public are properly reported and recorded.

Is the Lenborough Hoard the best example to use of how FLOs are deployed in the field? Could some of the issues that arose have been anticipated by the FLO? Are archaeologists just interested in recording objects and creating databases? What about the careful excavation of coin hoards that we have seen elsewhere?

The finder Paul Coleman is also quoted in the press release:

'When I saw the first few coins I was really excited because I knew I had found a hoard, however the excitement grew and grew as the size and importance of the find became apparent. Ros Tyrrell, the FLO who was in charge of the excavation, was spot on when she said "now I know a little of what Egyptologist Howard Carter must have felt, when he first looked into the tomb of Tutankhamen."'

What is meant by 'excavation' here? Did Carter scoop up the Tutankhamun finds into a handy F&M pannier? (No doubt an informed reader of LM will have studied the packing materials of the excavation.)

Coleman has indicated that he is willing to turn down the reward ("Jobless man set to miss out on £1 million hoard reward", Buckingham Today 10 February 2015).

Mr Vaizey said: “I’d especially like to thank the finders and landowners who have graciously waived their right to a reward so that local museums can acquire treasure. 

“It is an initiative that the government has been keen to support and it demonstrates that metal detectorists have a genuine interest in the past, and are not just interested in archaeology for personal gain.” 

The coins are being showcased at the British Museum this morning with curator, Gareth Williams, discussing his research into the hoard but the eventual resting place of the coins is yet to be decided.

It is pity that the apparent rushed removal of the coins will have meant that valuable contextual knowledge was lost.

Unearthing the Lenborough Hoard

I have commented on the Lenborough Hoard before. Current Archaeology has a short account of the "discovery" in its March 2015 edition ("Unearthing the Lenborough Hoard", p.9) and the entry is partially posted on the PAS website (I suggest you visit to see the error message that I am sure will disappear shortly after this post goes up).

The CA report tells is, 'Attending metal-detecting events in order to ensure finds are properly recorded and their precise locations logged is all in a day's work for a Finds Liaison Officer'. So does that mean that the precise relationship of the coins one to another was retained? After all, the BM has published the model way to excavate and remove a coin hoard.

Earlier reports had suggested that the coins were found in a 'lead bucket' but Ros Tyrrell (FLO) is now quoted: 'The coins had been piled onto a thin rectangle of lead sheet, after which the longer edges were folded over on themselves, and the ends pinched together to make an elliptical parcel'. The parcel now appears as part of the description on the PAS database.

The report informs us that the coins 'do not seem to have been arranged in any particular order'. I presume that this is an observation made from the carefully controlled removal of the coins.

The PAS database states that Gareth Williams is preparing a report for the Coroner while the CA story states that 'a full archaeological report' is in preparation for the Coroner's inquest. What will it contain?

I am sure that there are lessons to be derived from the removal of the hoard.