Artefact Hunting and Archaeological Responsibility

Antiquities collection Since the archaeological record is finite and fragile, responsible artefact hunters who are removing material and information from it must replace any information destroyed by a permanent and as full as possible documentation. The objects in a responsibly-created private collection should not be held loose, but in a form that allows them easily to be linked back to the documentation of the archaeological interference that produced them. As Ian Longworth (1992, 5) puts it, if the collected objects are to be used to fulfil their potential, then their care becomes a matter of paramount importance. It should be noted that preservation, far from being a passive role, is a task that must be worked at that calls for the use of many resources to turn good intention into reality. To be effective in this task private collections must seek to reach attainable standards and these need to apply to all aspects of the problem - the environmental conditions under whic

Stored artefacts ( Detecting and Collecting ) Responsible collection is about stewardship of the objects and the information associated with them. The responsible storage of an archaeological collection requires sufficient space for the material and the associated hard copies of the documentation where they are safe from hazards such as fire, flood etc. The collection should be in one location, not scattered. At all times the collector should act as though the next day they were going to walk out of the house and be hit by a bus, would the state in which the collection is at all times allow a third party to retrieve the information in it? All objects should be kept in a separate container (such as an individual box or bag) and be accompanied by a label bearing the details of the findspot and the collection catalogue number. Environment Every owner of an archaeological collection, whatever its size, has a duty to care for it. Appropriate action should be taken to maintain t

Totally unlabelled jumble of objects of all  periods displayed by a Gloucestershire detectorist ( Detecting for Gold 1 Jan 2019 ) Responsible collection of archaeological artefacts, in a museum or private collection, requires demonstration of the collector's commitment to documentation. The loose objects form part of the collection, while retaining the information value of their origin in teh archaeological record by becoming associated with individual dedicated documentation. As outlined by Ambourouè Avaro (2010, 2) in a manual of collection documentation: When an object is moved from its place of origin and its context, its significance is reduced and becomes more reliant on the documentation linked to it. Furthermore, when an object arrives [in a collection], it begins a “new life”: it will be studied, positioned, exhibited, restored, loaned and transferred, and will be placed alongside many other objects. It will thus be necessary to identify it in a unique way, and

Many collectors object to archaeologists and conservation professionals criticising the notion of a "private collection", saying that the material in their own personal portable antiquities collection is available to bona fide researchers for study. While this is laudable, it should not be imagined that this is an ideal situation for any researcher. Even if an object has been recorded in a public database like the PAS, t here is no mechanism to follow the movement of objects between various ephemeral private collections after it leaves the collection of the finder. If they are not accompanied by their own documentation, even objects that had been shown to archaeologists and recorded a decade or more earlier are in effect later  totally lost to science. Even if a few decades from now a coin or brooch surfaces anonymously, it will be difficult to relate it to one of the mass of records of similar-looking objects in archived archaeological records.  Many artefacts in private

Gaza antiquities collection ( Al-Monitor, 2014 ) The properly maintained collection requires a responsible attitude to acquisition. While this is easier to attain in a portable antiquities collection that is accumulated by deliberate purchase according to some underlying aims or programme, the question of how to achieve that in the case of artefact hunting is far more difficult to decide, and is an issue that seems not to be being discussed. In exploiting a site or topsoil assemblage, it is clear that a responsible approach would be to record everything that can be determined about the archaeological evidence (not just the collectable finds) observable in the course of the search activity. Material such as slag, nails, tile, burnt daub etc. would need to be systematically collected, analysed using the appropriate means and the results of the analysis recorded and then entered into the documentation of the search project. In metal detector surveys carried out for archaeologica

At some stage a responsible decision will have to be taken about what to do with a personal artefact collection if the original owner (finder) loses interest, moves house and has nowhere to store it, or dies. Every country in the European Union has developed legislation around cultural heritage, but not all have specific legislation on deaccessioning and disposal even in the cases of public museums let alone private collections. Particularly contentious is the use of funds raised from teh sales of antiquities, can a private collection be treated ethically as a financial asset to be realised in hard times (and to what degree is the landowner that allowed an artefact hunter to take items for free to be compensated if the items are later sold by him or his heirs when there was no prior agreement to do so? This is where documentation of title becomes important). There are views (for example Stevenson 2017) that archaeological antiquities, documented or not, should not be sold on the

There is a ' Code of Best Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales (2017) ' that has been endorsed by a number of official bodies and NGOs, its authorship is not officially claimed by any of them, and the code has tended to be ignored by many metal detectorists. Nevertheless for completeness, it will be briefly discussed. It has a preamble that ends "Being responsible means:" followed by four sections: (A) Before you go metal-detecting ; (B) While you are metal-detecting ; (C) After you have been metal-detecting ; (D ) "Finding out more about archaeology and metal detecting". The preamble says: "If undertaken responsibly metal-detecting can make an important contribution to archaeological knowledge. This document aims to provide guidance for metal-detectorists who wish to contribute to our understanding of the history of England and Wales." What is missing there is the notion of minimising the damage done to the archaeolog

Belitung wreck cargo for sale In the English-speaking world, this issue receives more attention and discussion, and heritage professionals adopt a far less equivocal position) in the USA and Australia than in the UK.  The sale of artefacts is a form of commercial exploitation of the common heritage and is considered unethical by the archaeological community. Treasure hunting and commercial exploitation seek profit and not the scientific, historical and social value of the heritage – thus knowledge is invariably lost when sites are not scientifically investigated. In a well-argued piece, Allen Dart, Director of the Old Pueblo Archaeology Center in Tucson says that relic collecting , "from simple gathering of a few pot sherds to organized pot hunting and other unauthorized commerce in antiquities, is one of the most destructive forces decimating our nation’s and the world’s cultural heritage". This fact has been recognised internationally by the enactment of restriction

Irresponsible commercialisation of the archaeological record ( Detectival )  Commercial artefact hunting rallies are events where a landowner sells temporary access to a piece of land containing archaeological and historical artefacts to metal detectorists who after paying the organizers a fixed fee convene there sometimes in very large numbers and take away everything they find and want to keep, unless it comes under the treasure legislation. In an attempt to make this look like a legitimate use of the archaeological record, the organisers can make a donation to a charity from the proceeds. Most archaeologists think that, in addition to commercialising archaeological objects, metal-detecting rallies ( can be damaging to archaeology. Often random, searching takes place over a large area of land, and it is almost impossible for anyone to make a proper record of all objects found. In the past, it was recommended that "if a metal-detecting rally occurs, to reduce damage and

It may facilitate responsible collaboration to keep up to date with the directions of change in archaeological policy and thinking with regard to collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record. The Council of RESCUE, the Trust for British Archaeology  has put together their policy on key issues  relating to archaeology and the historic environment. This clarifies where they stand and will provide a basis for future actions. The document begins with a summary of the body's commitments, cross-referenced to the relevant sections of the full set of policies. The document can be  downloaded here  (the sections relating to collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record are sections 10 and 11, pp 13-14).

Tamara Kroftova has contributed to this general conclusion: To summarise the above is a depressing task. In Britain today both archaeologists and artefact hunters stress that there already is "responsible artefact hunting", that the outreach that has been done has already achieved "responsible collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record", done allegedly by a majority of artefact hunters (here the emphasis is on those that go out with metal detectors). There is a Code of Best Practice for responsible metal Detecting in England and Wales, updated in 2017 and agreed with all the major archaeological bodies. Allegedly it is only "a minority" that does not follow this code and does not "responsibly metal detect". This is what the British press does not fail to emphasise every time metal detecting is mentioned (and it gets a lot of press coverage). Further examination of the way this is presented in Britain, however, brings us to