10.1: A 'Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting'


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 archaeological record and archaeological values in the course of metal detecting. The first section (4 points) therefore concentrates on not breaking the law (trespass, restricted areas), obtaining permission to search and take items from a landowner's property (no mention is made of documenting title), the third part is about "familiarising yourself with the Portable Antiquities Scheme" and the guidance it provides, and making the landowner aware that items will be recorded. The fourth covers public liability insurance . No other requirements before collection-driven exploitation are mentioned.

The second section (4 points) about responsibility while you are artefact hunting includes respecting the Country Code and is the only area that refers to the archaeological record:

  1. 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.
  2. Stopping any digging and making the landowner aware that you are seeking expert help if you discover something below the ploughsoil, or a concentration of finds or unusual material, or wreck remains. Your local Finds Liaison Officer may be able to help or will be able to advise on an appropriate person. Reporting the find does not change your rights of discovery, but will result in far more archaeological evidence being recovered.
  3. Recording findspots as accurately as possible for all archaeological finds (i.e. to at least a one ten metre square - an 8-Figure National Grid Reference), using a hand-held Global Positioning Systems (GPS) device whilst in the field or a 1:25000 scale map if this is not possible. Bag finds individually, recording the National Grid Reference on the bag with a waterproof/indelible marker. Archaeologists are interested in learning about all archaeological finds you discover, not just metallic items, because such finds contribute to knowledge.
The third section obliges the responsible detectorist to "report all archaeological finds to the Portable Antiquities Scheme", follow the law (Treasure Act 1996) and the Treasure Act Code of Practice and regarding export licences, reporting any human remains or unexploded ordnance and reporting any criminal activity observed.

From this, it transpires that only three of the Code's 17 points deal with the interaction of the artefact hunting and the preservation of the information in the parts of the archaeological record affected by the activity.

In discussing searching areas that have been disturbed by ploughing however, no mention is made of the necessity to record artefact scatters as such (***). The admonition to "be careful to ensure that no damage is done to the archaeological value of the land" is meaningless if the document does not define what it has in mind or how to determine that (and vague suggestions about it would be responsible to 'find out more about archaeology' are no help), the same goes for the admonition that the responsible detectorist will immediately recognise and avoid those finds "that seem to be in the place where they were deposited in antiquity".

Digging smaller holes does not in itself minimise damage - but makes it harder for future researchers to identify what has happened. No mention is made here of how to treat an artefact scatter where some items are extracted from scattered tiny holes, is it really enough of a record just to document where the holes are that contained an item added to a collection? What about the holes dug in the same area that contained fragments not added to the collection?

Again, bagging and labelling finds individually is a conditio sine qua non, but merely the 'National Grid Reference' is not an adequate record of the dismembering of a surface scatter or assemblage, and writing "on the bag with a waterproof/indelible marker" should obviously be supplemented by putting a waterproof (plastic) label in the bag, which should also be perforated. "Archaeologists are interested in learning about all archaeological finds you discover, not just metallic items, because such finds contribute to knowledge" is a weak way of saying how the scatter of those artefacts across the site should be being recorded if that removal was in any way to be regarded as "responsible artefact hunting/collection". Likewise not documenting it because a collector is not interested in, for example, pottery, slag or tile is not responsibly compensating the information lost at that site by that person merely selectively taken away from it the bits that the individual collector takes a fancy to. If the site is not going to be documented, better it was left alone.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2.1: What is archaeology?

Image
Archaeological research   as a process There are many possible ways to define the subject and object of study. This is the definition of archaeology used here: Archaeology is the study of aspects the human past through the documentation and analysis of physical remains and traces, their associations and contexts, by the methodology of archaeology and dissemination of the results and conclusions. 1) " The study of aspects of the human past ", The past might be very remote, from the Lower Palaeolithic, where it may intercalate with palaeontology (but archaeologists don't do dinosaurs), to almost the present day (periods when other but not all aspects of the past are amply documented by other sources), 2)  " aspects of the human past ", many areas of the human past are arguably beyond the reach of even the most creative of archaeological thought, 3) " through the documentation ", the archaeological evidence does not exist in a vacuum, curran...
Read more

3.3: Archaeological layers

Image
In talking about archaeological context we tend to think of it in terms of being composed of individual layers. These are discrete units of sediment, debris, rock, and other materials that form or accumulate as the result of natural processes, human activity, or both. In order to describe them and indicate their position on a site and in its sequence, these layers are generally numbered sequentially (with the lowest number being that removed first). An individual layer or deposit may be termed (following geological nomenclature) a stratum, and multiple layers are called strata. Therefore the study of their sequence is called stratigraphy (description of what we call the stratification). One of the simplest ways to depict layers is to depict them as a vertical sequence and this is frequently done in the form of a section (or 'profile') through them. Here is an explanation from Michigan State University 'Campus Archaeology' page "Archaeology 101: Reading strati...
Read more

4.1 What the archaeological record looks like in the Ground

Image
If the responsible artefact hunter is to  record the bits of the archaeological record destroyed in removing artefacts in collection-driven exploitation of a site, obviously they need to know what it is they are looking for, in other words, what the archaeological record looks like. At this point, many textbooks would show the reader a section or two showing the superimposed layers ("like a cake"). But that actually is not the way the stratification of a feature are actually encountered in the field. The suggestion that it is the section that is always paramount in the recording and interpretation of a site is a very damaging one. This is despite the prevalence of s ingle-context recording in the standard excavation methodical toolkit for over half a century. The main manner in which the stratigraphical units of a site are met is from above, from the working surface. The first point that this raises is that this should at all times be kept clean of loose soil, trample ...
Read more