Looting of archaeological sites in East Anglia

BBC Look East 17 October 2017

BBC Look East has covered the problem of looting on archaeological sites in East Anglia (October 17, 2017). The report covers the problem of illegal metal-detecting on the site of Great Chesterford, the response from the police (including PC Andy Long of Essex Constabulary) and landowners, as well as from metal-detectorists. Police will be installing cameras at key sites, as well as deploying drones to identify criminal activity.

The message that needs to get through is that archaeological contexts are being lost, and key pieces are not being reported.

The programme is available here for 24 hours.

BBC Look East 17 October 2017

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.

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.

Treasure hotspots in England

There is a report on the BBC that identifies "The best places in England for unearthing lost treasure" (Laurence Cawley, BBC News 17 January 2016). The report claims: "Research by the BBC has revealed Norfolk as the best spot for treasure hunters."

The report is full of praise for the Portable Antiquities Scheme:

In the 1980s, archaeologists and metal detectorists were at war over the nation's subterranean heritage. 

But in the 20 years since the PAS set out clear guidance for the reporting of finds by the public, the relationship between responsible detectorists and archaeologists has thawed. 

It so happens that Norfolk features in the Nighthawking Survey (2009) and in my discussion of PAS ("The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales?", 2010). I also gave Norfolk as an example in my 2009 response to the Survey.

The BBC report also gives a little more detail of the "hundreds of holes" at the site of the Roman "Saxon Shore" fort at Bradwell in Essex: "Animals don't dig using a flat-sided object, Nor do they pat the ground back on top of the hole or take out a ring-pull and leave it by the side of the hole."

Lenborough Hoard: appeal

Displaying the Lenborough Hoard at the British Museum
Photo: David Gill

Just one year ago the Lenborough Hoard was removed from a Buckinghamshire by less than scientific means. An appeal is now underway to raise money to buy the coins for the Buckingham County Museum: it has raised £12,000 ("Lenborough Anglo Saxon coin hoard pledges reach £12,000", BBC News 19 December 2015).

The money raised is hoped to persuade "funding bodies" to meet the balance, perhaps in the region of just under £1.3 million.

The account of the find raises several issues about the holding of "rallies" on sites that appear on the Historic Environment Record.

For further details see my: "Damaging the Archaeological Record: the Lenborough Hoard", Journal of Art Crime 13 (2015) 51-57 [academia.edu].

The Lenborough Hoard

My article, 'Damaging the archaeological record: The Lenborough Hoard', has appeared in the Journal of Art Crime 13 (Spring 2015) 51-57. The article reviews how the coins were removed from their archaeological context and suggests ways to develop stronger guidelines to protect the archaeological heritage of England and Wales.

Bland on the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet and the Lenborough Hoard

Roger Bland has placed his paper on 'The Portable Antiquities Scheme and Treasure Act: the Current Situation' given at the Museums Association March 2015 Dig It: Museums and Archaeology Conference online.

I notice that he discusses two topics discussed on LM. The first is the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet. Bland notes:

This was found by a metal detector user who reported it to one of our FLOs who was able to establish exactly where it was found.

I have discussed this helmet in print elsewhere (available online). Bland does not draw attention to the fact that the two FLOs [not one!] were not shown the reported find spot for some three months (i.e. on 30 August 2010).

Bland then talked about the subsequent excavation:

This at least proved that the object had come from Crosby Garrett – some people commenting on the web had doubted that – and that it had a context, as it came from a so - called `native’ settlement. The immediate context of the helmet remains difficult to pin down: it seems to have been buried below a rough stone floor, though whether that belonged to a building, a road, or possibly a cairn is unclear.

I have discussed this investigation and I found that the evidence was not compelling.

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

At the end of the talk Bland turned to the Lenborough Hoard as an example of a hoard falling under the Treasure Act:

Four days before Christmas the Finds Liaison Officer (FLO) for the Portable Antiquities Scheme in Bucks was invited to record the finds made by detectorists at a metal detecting rally at Lenborough, just south of Buckingham. Within half an hour of arriving and setting up her recording table, news came that something interesting had been found! As the light went at the end of the day a hoard of more than 5,000 silver coins, wrapped in a damaged lead parcel, had been excavated. The coins had been piled onto a thin rectangle of lead sheet with cut edges. The longer edges had then been lifted and folded over on themselves and the ends pinched together to make an elliptical parcel. Through the damage on the upper surface a tightly packed, jumble of coins could be seen. They did not appear to have been laid in any order and there was no trace of, or room for them to have been in leather pouches. This was a rescue job and Ros, as our sole FLO at event with about a hundred metal detector users, did a heroic job in the circumstances and ensured that all the coins were recovered.

This hoard has been discussed on LM before. In particular there is the issue of the historic nature of the location where the rally was held. And what about the less than orthodox removal of the coins, in contrast to the Beau Street Hoard that was removed in a scientific way that has allowed detailed study and interpretation?

Bland has only placed his notes on line and not his refined final views. But his online presentation appears to overlook some of the key issues relating to both these 'finds'.

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.

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.

Protecting the archaeology of England and Wales

In late 2010 I was invited to write a forum article on 'The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales?' for the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology (online). There were responses by Trevor Austin, Paul Barford, Gabriel Moschenska, Lord Renfrew and Sally Worrell (also online) and with a rejoinder by me. The text was written against the background of the 2009 Nighthawks and Nighthawking report (see some discussion from that time).

A number of issues were raised including suggestions about how the Treasure Act could be revised and strengthened. There was a tension that I highlighted:

Archaeologists would argue for the stewardship of the archaeological record and the importance of context, whereas (some) metal-detectorists are perhaps only interested in retrieving objects that can be owned either by themselves or sold on to others.

(Please note the deliberate use of some and perhaps.) Perhaps one of the disappointing issues to emerge from the forum paper was that senior staff from the Portable Antiquities Scheme failed to engage with the debate. (Sally Worrell's piece was a short discussion of the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet.)

The Lenborough hoard has been causing a storm on twitter. If this hoard was found on an undisturbed archaeological site at a depth of two feet (60 cms) then it is appropriate for the find to be discussed (see my initial reporting of the find).

Last month I hosted a research seminar given by a senior colleague from the Institute of Archaeology. He made a strong defence of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) and I felt that there were many points of agreement between us. It was interesting to hear his views on metal-detecting articulated in such a clear way. We also discussed how senior members of PAS had lost an opportunity to make their case by declining the invitation to respond to the forum piece in PIA. 

This is the sort of dialogue that should be taking place. What are the appropriate responses? How can the rich archaeological heritage of England and Wales be protected, preserved and interpreted?

Is this the our common ground in more ways than one?

The Lenborough Hoard

The BBC is now reporting on the finding of a major late Anglo-Saxon (to early Norman) hoard near Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire ("Thousands of ancient coins discovered in Buckinghamshire field", 2 January 2015).

Paul Coleman from the Weekend Wanderers Detecting Club discovered more than 5,000 coins buried inside a lead bucket two feet under a field near Aylesbury.

This has earlier been reported as a find made at Lenborough ("Silver coins worth £1m found on farm", Buckingham Today 31 December 2014). Paul Barford has drawn attention to the fact that the find was made at the location of a deserted medieval village, and a Medieval Manor House (see website of metal-detecting group: "Tons of history here, DMV site, Medieval Manor house and windmill site, Roman treasure found at adjacent village and much more....").

Two feet underground does not sound like a surface find. What stratigraphical and contextual information has been lost? (For a discussion of these issues see the forum article in Papers of the Institute of Archaeology 2010.)

The hoard will be considered under The Treasure Act. The FLO from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) was present for part of the removal. The local paper reported:

Archaeologist Ros Tyrrell, the Finds Liaison Officer for Bucks, who is based at the Bucks County Museum in Aylesbury, was at the rally to record any finds made on the day, when the major hoard of more than 5,251½ Anglo Saxon silver coins was uncovered. Miss Tyrrell was immediately called over to help excavate the coins.

We look forward to seeing the publication of the excavation as well as the finds in due course.

The So-Called Crosby Garrett Helmet

The Crosby Garrett and the Ribchester helmets
on display in The British Museum
© David Gill

The latest volume of the Journal of Art Crime is now available. It includes my essay on the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet timed to coincide with the public display in the British Museum.

The article considers the new evidence presented by the study of the reported find-spot. It returns to the issue of The Treasure Act and the need to make amendments.

Reference
‘Context matters: The So-called Crosby Garrett Helmet’, Journal of Art Crime 11 (2014) 53-59.

Paul Barford on East Anglia

Questions at UCS © David Gill

The UCS Heritage seminar welcomed Paul Barford to give a paper today. It was a good opportunity for me, and for those attending, to hear Paul articulate his views on the unrestricted hunt for portable archaeological objects. There appeared to be a mix of attendees from the archaeological service, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, museums, and the metal-detecting community.

My colleague Dr Ian Baxter and I were tweeting some of the key points. Here are some of them:

• lack of clear conservation policy for the archaeological record
• critical debate on artefact hunting missing from the archaeological community
• the forum paper for the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology
• under-reporting may be as high as 80% (though Norfolk may be as low as 25%)
• the development and methodology of the Heritage Action counter
• the disturbance of deep stratigraphy due to metal-detecting
• the increasing use of metal-detectors that detect deeper and in a range of conditions
• the intellectual consequences of loss of context

There was an extended time of questions, discussion and debate.

• What could be done to improve the situation?
• There seemed to be widespread dislike of the term 'treasure'. We were reminded that the focus is often on the metal rather than the archaeological importance.
• Is legislative change important? Should reporting be compulsory?
• Comparison was made with Greece where there are stricter controls and recording of finds. (This perspective was provided by Cambridge researcher Christos Tsirogiannis.)
• Is the legal framework now outdated where once it was world leading?
• 10% of archaeological sites in Suffolk known from metal-detecting.
• The importance of the 30 year relationship that had been developed between the archaeological and metal-detecting communities in East Anglia.
• The impact of potato crops on archaeological sites.
• Should PAS-style reporting be introduced for countries like Iraq?
• English Heritage advice on metal-detecting.
• Representative collections to be held by museums; acceptance of private collections.
• Where should financial resources be directed in the present financial climate?
• Positive media coverage of PAS.
• ITV's 'Britain's Secret Treasures'should be seen as 'entertainment' rather than a factual programme.
• The Crosby Garrett helmet and the failure to close loopholes in the present system.
• The amount of money paid for treasure finds (and apparent lack of transparency).
• The scheduling of archaeological sites (and areas around 'hoard' findspots). This led to a short discussion of the area where the Staffordshire Hoard was found.

These points should give a flavour of the paper as well as the subsequent discussion. They do not necessarily cover all of Paul's points or all of the questions.

I felt that the seminar brought together a range of positions in the debate. Paul offered a voice that is so often marginalised, overlooked or silenced. I very much hope that he will turn his notes into a published version.

Britain, archaeology and treasure

I have now watched the first episode of ITV's "Britain's Secret Treasures" (on ITV Player) presented by journalist Michael Buerk and Bettany Hughes. The opening sequence appears to suggest that there is gold under the rolling English fields (and specifically under trampled cornfields). Bettany Hughes very early on in the sequence reminds us that these treasures can be found "feet" below the surface ("all just a few feet beneath our feet") (so presumably this causal "digging" will be damaging stratified layers well below ploughing; see here).

I am not sure why a Roman "slave shackle", reportedly found near the Roman road between Winchester and Silchester, should take us to the amphitheatre ("the O2 arena of its time") at Silchester. Or does a horse boss have to have been lost on a particular day?

This is a superficial programme that suggests that there is money to be made from digging up our cosmopolitan past.

Police investigate Twinstead sovereigns

It appears that Essex Police are now investigating the gold sovereigns discovered during a rally at Twinstead near Sudbury in Essex ("Halstead: Appeal for missing coins worth £70k", Halstead Gazette December 1, 2011). It appears that approximately 200 gold coins, with an estimated value of £70,000, have gone undeclared.

PC Andy Long, who acts as a heritage crime officer with Essex Police, made the situation quite clear:

All the coins found on the site are protected by the Treasure Act. They are treasure trove and have to be declared to the county coroner. We would urge anyone who has taken any of the coins or knows of their whereabouts to contact me immediately."

PC Long can be contacted via here.

Details of the Treasure Act can be found here. The duty of the finder (as well as details of the offence linked to the failure to report the find) can be found here.

Debating the Portable Antiquities Scheme

I am grateful to the editorial team of the Papers from the Institute of Archaeology (UCL) to write a forum piece on the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act. Brian Hole gives the background in his editorial.

This is now available online with responses from:

• Trevor Austin, General Secretary, National Council for Metal Detecting
• Paul Barford
• Gabriel Moshenska, Institute of Archaeology, UCL
• Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
• Sally Worrell, Portable Antiquities Scheme

There is a final response from me.

Lord Renfrew calls for transparency

The sale of the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet for £2.2 million ($3.6 million) has started to raise some uncomfortable questions. It is now clear if the helmet was found by "a young guy" (Georgiana Aitken of Christie's) or "an unnamed father and son" from Peterlee County Durham (The Independent). Dr Roger Bland of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) has talked about "the real gap" in The Treasure Act (1996). (Indeed the real issue is the term used for the act.)

A month ago Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn called a review of The Treasure Act in a letter to The Times (London).

On October 20, 2010 Lord Renfrew tabled a written question:

To Ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the definition of "treasure" so that major heritage discoveries, such as the Roman parade helmet found at Crosby Garrett and recently sold by public auction, should fall within the scope of the Treasure Act.[HL2515]

Baroness Rawlings (the President of the British Antique Dealers' Association [BADA]) presented a written reply:

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport plans to review the Treasure Act Code of Practice and this will include the definition of Treasure contained in the Treasure Act 1996. This review will take the form of a public consultation and so will provide the opportunity to consider whether it would be appropriate to extend the definition of treasure to include items such as the Roman parade helmet found at Crosby Garrett.

Lord Renfrew has now returned to the theme in the House of Lords by asking the question (November 11, 2010):

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the definition of “treasure” in the Treasure Act 1996 in the light of the sale at auction of the Roman parade helmet recently found in Cumbria for £2 million.

Baroness Rawlings reminded Lord Renfrew of her written reply. In response Lord Renfrew noted:

It is strange that a national treasure can be sold at public auction by an anonymous vendor to an anonymous buyer.

But he then added a question that must cause concern for those dealing in antiquities within the United Kingdom:

will the Government consider reviewing the law on antiquities at sale by auction in favour of some transparency?

Transparency would mean auction houses and galleries providing full details of collecting histories and vendors.

Lord Redesdale returned to the issue of the Crosby Garrett helmet:

My Lords, are moves afoot to look at the practices of the auction houses, given that this helmet was found in many pieces and an enormous amount of archaeological information was lost when conservators put the pieces back together without consulting archaeologists? Is that a practice that auction houses should undertake, given that loss of information on a very rare artefact? Are the Government looking at sales of antiquities through internet sites such as eBay? That is becoming a real source of worry, as much of our heritage is disappearing abroad without any record whatever.

The restorer's report on the helmet is indeed enlightening and I am very grateful to Georgiana Aitken of Christie's for sending me a copy. There is indeed real concern that such an unusual object - could we use the term 'national treasure'? - was not put in the hands of an archaeological conservator.

But Lord Redesdale also raises the issue about eBay. He appears to be suggesting that archaeological material from the United Kingdom is slipping abroad. Are these just chance finds? Or are there those who make a deliberate search for archaeological material? And are all these items recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme? How much material goes unrecorded?

Baroness Rawlings responded by talking about 'provenance' (or more accuratley 'collecting histories'):

It is in the interests of both auctioneers and dealers to check that the provenance of items is acceptable to reduce any risk of prosecution for handling stolen goods or dealing in tainted or mended goods.

This brings us back to Lord Renfrew's point for the need of greater transparnechy in the market and the full disclousre of documented collecting histories when archaeological material is offered for sale on the market.

The sale of the Crosby Garrett helmet may well be seen as a turning-point in the debate over the market in archaeological material.

The find-spot of the Crosby Garrett helmet

The find-spot (or "provenance" to use the terminology of Christie's) for the Crosby Garrett helmet is given as: "Discovered by a metal detectorist, Crosby Garrett, Cumbria, May 2010". But what is the accurate and reliable collecting history?

The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) suggests that the helmet "was found in 33 fragments, with 34 smaller fragments found in association." The finder was "a young guy" (according to Georgiana Aitken of Christie's) who has chosen to remain anonymous; he is clarified by the Independent as "from the North East of England and in his 20s". Yet there is a suggestion that there was more than one finder. Indeed the print edition of today's Independent ("Museum's £1.7m whip-round fails to save it Roman mask", Friday 8 October 201, 3) states:

"The helmet was unearthed in May by an unnamed father and son, from Peterlee, Co. Durham. They had spent years running their metal detectors over a site near Crosby Garrett. Their earlier searches turned up nothing of any value but they carried on because they liked the view."

Paul Barford has done a little more searching. The Peterlee link was noted in mid-September by the Westmorland Gazette. The Peterlee Mail also confirms the individual came from County Durham.

I note (following a link provided by Paul Barford) that a Peterlee metal-detectorist was involved with a case where an object had two separate find-spots: fields near Thirsk or near Catterick. If this Peterlee metal-detectorist is related to the finder of the "Crosby Garrett" helmet, there must be some concern that the Crosby Garrett findspot has been reported accurately. And if it is the same metal-dectorist (or his father) then it would be an interesting coincidence.

Roger Bland has written about the subsequent story:

The finder contacted Sally Worrell, National Finds Adviser in PAS (not the local FLO), in late May to tell her about the find and she saw the helmet and met the finder at Christie's on the day that he took it to Christie's (4th June). He had already been in touch with Christie's and other dealers quite soon after its discovery in May and the object was left with Christie's and their restorer from then on. At no point was the object in the care of PAS (or the British Museum).

Bland also notes that the findspot was not revealed until late August (i.e. more than 3 months later):

On 30 Aug., after lengthy telephone conversations with Sally, the finder showed Dot Boughton and Stuart Noon, joint Finds Liaison Officers for Cumbria and Lancashire, the findspot in Crosby Garrett. There is still evidence for the hole dug in the ground and the FLOs observe that the field contains traces of earthworks (which of course cannot be dated). The findspot is within 300m of a Roman road. 50 other objects have been recorded by PAS from the parish, including three other Roman finds.

Christie's asked for the PAS reference number but we declined to record it until we were satisfied that we had a precise findspot. We stressed to Christie's that no museum could consider buying it without that information and without assurance that the object was being sold with the agreement of the landowner.

What is not clear to me is how a firm connection can be made between a hole in the ground in Cumbria and the alleged findspot of the helmet. Is there any independent evidence that the soil traces on the helmet came from this site? Were any other bronze fragments found in the field?

What if the helmet came from an unrecorded site that the searchers wish to keep secret?

Between early June and August the helmet was restored (not conserved) for Christie's (apparently against a request from PAS and the British Museum). By early September it was ready to be photographed and placed in the catalogue for the October auction.

As a Dan from PAS, writing on behalf of Roger Bland, stated: "we regret that the finder and landowner were not willing to offer this find directly to Tullie House museum and that Christie’s have restored it before it could be scientifically examined."

What if the parade helmet was not found at Crosby Garrett? What are the intellectual consequences as the helmet is added to the narrative of the Roman occupation of northern England?

And does this case suggest that there is a need to amend The Treasure Act to strengthen the protection of the archaeological heritage of England and Wales?

Reference:

Worrell, S (2010) LANCUM-E48D73 A ROMAN HELMET Webpage available at: http://www.finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/404767 [Accessed: Oct 8, 2010 2:19:43 PM]