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

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.

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 Dumfriesshire Viking hoard: "an approachable stance towards engaging with detectorists"

Earlier this week it was announced that a metal-detectorist searching pasture in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, had discovered a significant Viking hoard in September ("Viking treasure haul unearthed in Scotland", BBC News October 12, 2014).

The "Code of practice for responsible metal detecting", available from the website of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (for England and Wales), suggests:

Wherever possible 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 undisturbed pasture, be careful to ensure that no damage is done to the archaeological value of the land, including earthworks.

The significance of this clause has been observed by Paul Barford ("Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Straight from the Horse's Mouth").

Yet Suzie Thomas's commentary on this Viking hoard does not comment on the searching of undisturbed pasture, nor on deep searches ("Discovering a Viking hoard: a day in the life of a metal detectorist", The Conversation October 14, 2014). Rather she seems to be happy with the official acceptance of metal-detecting:

today’s more typically co-operative relationship in the UK. The Treasure Trove Unit in Scotland, and the Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales take an approachable stance towards engaging with detectorists.

Some of the issues were explored in a forum article (and responses) in UCL's Papers from the Institute of Archaeology [online].

Thomas's paper fails to engage with the nighthawking issue. She cites the 2009 Nighthawking Survey and she suggests that illegal activity was decreasing (a point dismissed at the time by Keith Miller). She does not mention that illegal activity on scheduled sites was actually increasing. Indeed her mention of Norfolk and the acceptance of metal-detecting needs to be read alongside what the Nighthawking Survey revealed for that same county.

It is, perhaps, ironic that the Heritage Lottery Fund and the National Museum of Wales (Amgueddfa Cymru) announced only this week news of a major project to work on material discovered by metal-detectorists ("Unearthing the past: Heritage Lottery grant supports new initiative to get the best from archaeological finds").

Is the continued searching for archaeological material by metal-detectorists in England, Wales and Scotland sustainable?

Heritage and Cultural Property Crime

The Tower © David Gill

The UK Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) launched a report on Heritage and Cultural Property Crime today at the Tower of London [details].

National HCPC Policing Lead, Chief Constable Andy Bliss, said: “Our historic environment and cultural property are among our most prized possessions as a nation and play a huge part in our tourism economy. However, crime against our heritage and cultural assets is a significant threat to this legacy. This report allows for a much clearer understanding of the breadth and complexity of the problem.”

The report itself is not without interest. The chosen motif for the report is Stonehenge, placing the context on (prehistoric) archaeological monuments in their wider landscape settings. The reports notes:

A considerable amount of heritage assets targeted by criminals take the form of places, buildings, structures, and archaeological and maritime sites which this assessment refers to as the historic environment.

Readers of LM will know that I was invited to write a forum piece ("The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales?") for the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology (London). My understanding is that officers of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) were invited to respond but declined. There was a single PAS contribution by Sally Worrell on the so-called the Crosby Garrett helmet.

Yet PAS (represented by Dr Michael Lewis) — an organisation that appears to have turned a blind eye to the issue of heritage crime and indeed has contributed to media programmes that have encouraged the search for Britain's buried "treasures" — is now contributing to the formulation of English / Welsh policy on heritage crime.

One of the strengths noted by the report includes:

The Portable Antiquities Scheme is a DCMS funded project to encourage the voluntary recording of archaeological objects found by members of the public in England and Wales. Every year many thousands of objects are discovered, many of these by metal-detector users, but also by people whilst out walking, gardening or going about their daily work. Such discoveries offer an important source for understanding our past.

How many finds go unrecorded? (This was an issue raised in the PIA forum piece.) How will the removal of finds from scheduled archaeological sites be addressed?

On a wider scale, will the working party look at the way that cultural property from other nations, including Europe, continues to be sold on the London market?

I know that fellow archaeological writers monitor heritage crime in the UK, but LM will endeavour to keep its readers informed.

Gower Repatriation?

© David Gill

Byron Davies, AM has reignited the repatriation debate about the "Red Lady of Paviland" (see my earlier comments with link back to the 2004 "call"). The bones, found at Paviland on Gower in 1823, are now in Oxford.

Mr Davies is quoted on the BBC ("Red Lady of Paviland bones 'should come home' to Wales", November 25, 2013):

"As a child I used to go down to the cave where it was discovered, and have always believed it's something intrinsically Welsh which needs to be back home. 

"With the City of Culture bid focusing everyone's minds in and around Swansea for the last year or so, it didn't seem the right time to champion it. 

"But last week I met [UK culture secretary) Maria Miller, who said that if I was prepared to put together a proposal, then she thought it would be a good idea for all sorts of reasons."

The bones were placed on temporary display in Cardiff in 2008.

Heritage changes in Wales

Strata Florida © David Gill

The latest E-Fwletin (E-Bulletin) from CADW (September 2013) announces the proposed merger between CADW and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales. The model seems to be that adopted for Scotland.

Details of the consultation can be found here.

Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales: details published

TheWelsh Government has published details about its handling of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales. The information, released under Freedom of Information, shows that the National Museum of Wales alerted CyMAL on 26 November 2010 ("increasingly concerned"; "The issue ... giving us the greatest concern ... is the Portable Antiquities Scheme"). The letter highlighted the need for Wales to meet the funding gap of £64K. (It is worth comparing these figures to the ones that appeared in the PAS press release in November 2010.)

The second memorandum (from CyMAL dates from 28 October 2011. This seems to suggest that little formal planning was undertaken during the intervening 11 months. (This overlooks the discussions that were taking place in public fora as well as in academic publications.) Interestingly the memorandum required a decision by 1 November 2011. In other words the memorandum was sent on a Friday and a decision was required by the following Tuesday. The prompt seems to have come from "metal detecting clubs in Wales". The memorandum presents a chronology of the funding proposals. The stepped decrease in funding from England is presented. The arrangements for an announcement are discussed ("Rather than a press release ...") as well as a note on the "publicity" by "metal detectorists and historians".

Welsh Government to consider revised funding package for PAS

 Minister Huw Lewis discussing heritage matters at the Hay Festival, May 2011
 © David Gill

The Welsh Government has issued its first statement on the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS): "The future of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales" (31 October 2011). (Earlier in October 2011 there was no mention whatsoever of PAS on the WG website.)

It now seems that the Minister for Heritage has realised that he has devolved responsibility for PAS in Wales. And with responsibility comes the need to foot the bill.

The Minister for Heritage is being asked to consider a revised funding package from Wales to support the continued operation of the popular and successful Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in Wales in 2012-13 and identifies a framework for future years.

This appears to suggest that there is no solution to the funding question but merely a "consideration".

Yet this cannot have been news to any serious heritage watchers in Wales. It was raised specifically on the James and Louise show on BBC Wales back in June this year. There had been academic discussion of the issue in the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology (London) in December 2010. In November 2010 PAS made a statement about the impact of the comprehensive spending review on PAS operations in Wales (a view that I heard aired in Cambridge earlier that autumn). This statement was issued just as the Welsh Assembly Government (as it was then) had announced cuts to the heritage budget in Wales. And to go back even further (May 2010) PAS was discussed at an open meeting in Cardiff where CyMAL was represented.

The apparent confusion is unwarranted and serious questions should be asked about how politicians and civil servants in Cardiff Bay have handled the issue of protecting the portable heritage of Wales.

The present official decision is this:

The funding package being considered would allow for the continuation of the Scheme in Wales including the continued employment of the Wales Finds Liaison Officer by Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales and the continuation of the role undertaken by the Welsh Archaeological Trusts.

What is not clear is how this will be funded, when the matter will be resolved, and where additional cuts will be made to find the necessary money.

It would also be interesting to know how WG can make the claim: "It [sc. PAS] also seems to have reduced the amount of illicit detecting on archaeological sites." What is the evidence for this?

Portable Antiquities Scheme and Wales

Minister Huw Lewis at the Hay Festival
© David Gill, 2011

I have already had cause to comment on the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review on the Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales. This will be the responsilbity of Huw Lewis, Welsh Government Minister for Housing, Regeneration and Heritage. Lewis shared his vision of how "heritage" could contribute to the economy of Wales at the 2011 Hay Festival.

Archaeologist Paul Barford has launched a new blog, "Na i PAS ar gyfer Cymru: No to a Welsh PAS", where he suggests that Wales could adopt a radical and distinct solution to the issue of the removal of portable antiquities from the archaeological record.

PAS in Wales

Devolved government in Wales has meant that responsibility for the Portable Antiquities Scheme now rests with the National Museum of Wales (in Cardiff). PAS does not appear to feature on the Welsh Government website.

Looting Matters on the Move

Swansea University © David Gill

Today was my last day at Swansea University. I joined the then Department of Classics and Ancient History back in 1992. This became the Department of Classics, Ancient History and Egyptology before merging to become the Department of History and Classics within the College of Arts and Humanities.

I have been able to develop a specialised MA module "Collecting Egyptian Antiquity" as well as pursuing my research on archaeological ethics.

Jamie and Louise: Looting Matters

I enjoyed talking to Jamie and Louise on BBC Radio Wales earlier today. The programme is available on the BBC iPlayer here. (The interview was between 11 am and 11.30 am.)

We were able to cover the significance of the seizure of the Medici dossier, the appearance of recently surfaced antiquities on the London market, looting in antiquity, and the Icklingham bronzes from Suffolk, England. There was a short discussion of the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review on the Portable Antiquities Scheme in Wales.

Looting Matters Live on the BBC

Looting Matters will be live on BBC Radio Wales "Jamie and Louise" tomorrow morning (Wednesday) at 11 am.

What should we discuss? The impact of the photographic archives on the market? Recent returns? Looting in the UK? What about the situation in Wales? Universal museums?

We are inviting questions through Louise's Twitter feed @LouiseTalks

Listen in live (or later on the BBC iPlayer) and join in the debate.

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.

Portable Antiquities Scheme: detail on cuts

The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) has posted details of how it will deal with the cuts announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. PAS is facing a 15% reduction by 2014-15. One of the most significant features is the impact of devolution. Historically PAS has covered England and Wales. However it is stated:

To reduce the current contribution made by the Scheme to PAS in Wales, the total costs of which is £75K pa, from £59K this year to £6K from 2012. This is on the basis that these costs should be borne by the Welsh Assembly Government, through CyMAL or the National Museum Wales

Wales is facing significant budget cuts. (See draft budget.) Last Friday, the Heritage Minister, Alun Ffred Jones, announced:

As a result of cuts to the Welsh budget by the UK government, the Heritage portfolio revenue budget will see a reduction of 3.15% over 3 years with the capital budget decreasing by 33.9% over 3 years.

The Welsh Assembly Government website does not appear to contain any mention of PAS.

PAS Annual Reports

I have been working on an invited discussion of the Portable Antiquities Scheme and have been frustrated by the absence of annual reports on their website.

So here they are:

• 2003/2004 (from PAS website)
• 2004/2005 (from PAS website)
• 2005/2006 (from PAS website)
• 2007 (full report from the National Council for Metal Detecting) (summary from PAS) (Google Docs from PAS)
• 2008 (statistical release from PAS website)
• 2009

I would be grateful for further links.

"Preserving this rich heritage"

I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to colleagues at Swansea University's Egypt Centre. In a speech to be delivered later today, Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) Heritage minister Alun Ffred Jones will be launching a new museum strategy for Wales ("Welsh Museums Look to the Future", WAG Press Release June 16, 2010 [Welsh language version]; "Museums in Wales urged to appeal to the young", BBC June 16, 2010). This will take place in the Swansea Museum, founded in 1841 and also home to Egyptian antiquities.

The minister is quoted:

"Wales is a unique and enriching place in which to live and work, with a distinctive character ... The museums of Wales play a critical part in both preserving this rich heritage and in sharing the excitement of their stories locally, nationally and internationally. Museums need to build on their tradition of working together to make effective use of resources.

The strategy document draws attention to the award-winning volunteering scheme at the Egypt Centre. The BBC report has an interview with Assistant Curator Wendy Goodridge.

Bibliography
Gill, David W.J. "From Wellcome Museum to Egypt Centre: Displaying Egyptology in Swansea." Göttinger Miszellen 205 (2005): 47-54.

"History is Hot"

Today I attended the launch of the beta version of the People's Collection Wales / Casgliad y Werin Cymru at the National Museum in Cardiff. (The official launch is due to be in August 2010.) The website includes tours as well as the ability to add data.

One of the aims of the project is to put objects residing in museums back into the spatial contexts. The Collection is far more than archaeology but we were reminded by one of the participants that "History is Hot".

Image
St Davids Head, Pembrokeshire © David Gill