Artefact Hunting and Archaeological Responsibility

There is a separate class of sites that need to be discussed here as they involve a whole series of other problems and investigation methods. Here the main evidence takes the form of the three-dimensional patterning of just the artefacts (and ecofacts) 'suspended' in a relatively homogeneous matrix that comprises deposits of geological/ pedological origin and may be a reflection of long-term environmental change. They are sometimes (falsely) called 'one-layer sites'. These mainly concern the archaeology of open-air sites of the Stone Age (cave sites were generally the result of other processes), but can also occur in the archaeology of other earlier prehistoric periods also.  Here what has happened is that material that was originally lying on a ground surface has sunk into the material under them through natural pedological processes (such as worm-sorting [Link] *** or frost-heaving and other mechanisms). This may be accompanied by accumulation processes, such as a

In the public imagination, 'archaeological looting' of stratified sites is only something that mainly happens abroad. Unfortunately, there are a lot of cases where archaeological sites with preserved stratification are dug into by artefact hunters looking for collectable items in the UK too. An attempt to dissuade artefact hunters from doing this was the Code of Practice asking metal detector users to respect certain principles: 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 r

There are a number of resources that help to understand how responsibly to interact with stratified sites, apart from taking part in a fieldwork course (maybe as part of adult education), and online courses, there are also a large number of available books. One of the amazing things about British archaeology (compared to much of the rest of the world) is the enormous number of 'how-to' (or 'why-we') books on various aspects of the discipline, far in excess of what is available anywhere else.  These explain the methodology of archaeology in considerable detail.  Probably there are several dozen books on archaeological fieldwork and excavation that are worth reading (and some which are not), the list below is by no means exhaustive.  The Time Team webpage used to have an online reading list which included references to books about archaeological methodology, but this has disappeaered.  The PAS has never produced such a list.   Tony Robinson and Mick Aston's  200

Egypt Exploration Society's  work at Naqada In the public imagination, archaeology is seen as a profession that is site-focused  and primarily concerned with excavation. This approach fails to see that the investigation of landscapes and environment requires a more holistic approach and especially the use of broader surface evidence . Much work of archaeologists consists of fieldwork and survey  as well as the use of aerial photography to elucidate and document the current state of earthwork sites. Geophysical and cropmark evidence is also a form of archaeology that examines the surface of larger areas without digging. A huge amount of fieldwork is also done on surface sites by various forms of fieldwalking (also called pedestrian survey) which aims to recover and document patterns of material in the surface layers of sites, exposed by processes such as river erosion, deflation and ploughing. This can cover large areas of cultural landscapes and reveal much about changing

Archaeological surface  survey in progress , not a JCB or shovel in sight The examination of cultural landscapes by surface survey arguably began in Britain and one of the influential proponents of this manner of research in its beginnings was O.G.S. Crawford . As this approach matured, fieldwalking developed as a method of rapidly covering areas about to be engulfed by redevelopment such as road construction in the 1970s and in the US as part of the development of the methodologies of Cultural Resource Management. It also had a use in archaeological research projects carried out abroad, for example in the Mediterranean region. Surface survey coupled with environmental sampling was a cost-effective means of gaining research data to answer a range of research questions. The development of this type of research in the Mediterranean region is discussed by Athanassopoulos and Wandsnider 2004. The early field surveys (such as the  Minnesota Messenia Expedition that started in t

Prospekcja powierzchniowa na węgierskich polach.   Fot. S. Rzeźnik The methodology and aims of the study of individual sites by means of a close examination of the characteristics of their surface exposures is not generally discussed in outreach to artefact hunters and other finders. Some supporters of liaison with the artefact hunting community even claim that the removal of diagnostic finds from them makes no difference because "in many cases they are only from the ploughsoil". The suggestion is motivated by several notions, as one artefact hunter wrote  on his blog :  How can we [artefact hunters] be slated for digging up finds that are in the plough soil and have been moved around for hundreds if not thousands of years.  They are not in their context, they haven't been since farmers used the land.  There is nothing that can be learnt except from the item itself. [...]  there is no [context] to record as the find has been dragged out of it by the plough for

Rossnaree,  Lithic scatter plotted by grid square The recently-revised document ' Managing Lithic Scatters' in fact ignores the whole question of the effects of artefact hunting and collecting (apart from the notion of 'paying attention to legacy collections'): Abstract Due to their durability, stone artefacts are a significant source of archaeological evidence, and are usually found either sealed in their original context as undisturbed sites, or as lithic scatters displaced by natural or agricultural processes. For much of prehistory both types of lithic sites provide the majority, and sometimes the only evidence, of past human activity and subsistence strategies. By studying and understanding their formation, spatial distribution and technological attributes, we can get closer to understanding the activities of the people who created these artefacts. Lithic sites are an important archaeological resource that can provide valuable insights into prehistory

From the above, it is clear that detailed recording and analyses of the contents and patterns of surface sites can significantly contribute to our understanding of many aspects of life in thee past, from prehistory to modern times. This can be achieved during responsible artefact hunting, but part of the problem is overcoming the difference between what the average collector considers collectable, and archaeological evidence. Much of the latter has often simply been bypassed in Collection-Driven Exploitation of the archaeological record (see ****). The issue is not only whether the artefact hunter gathers every artefact visible on the surface of a field. The issue is a little more complex. This diagram illustrates a fictional surface site with the distribution of four types of artefact across it (shown by the different colours): It represents a ploughed site in two separate fields next to an area of pasture (where no surface finds can be found and plotted). There are four d

The metal detector is of course an effective survey tool that can be used alongside several other techniques. This section of the text will expand on the previous ones and illustrate some results of surface investigations involving the use of metal detectors. The first example of good practice that I will use here is an old one, from the early days of archaeological collaboration with hobbyist metal detectorists, the survey of the site at Cottam B ( Anglian and Anglo-Scandinavian Cottam: linking digital publication and archive ). The first picture shows the distribution of surface finds in a field overlaid on a simplified plan of the cropmarks: Cottam B ( Internet archaeology )  In the following plots we see the  plots of scatters of individual types of metal objects  (the non-metallic material was not collected in this project) and it can be seen that there are relations between them which may be analysed, and if we were to plot other material, slag and other manufacturing

There is an official document that sets out Historic England’s approach to good practice with regard to surface-collected portable antiquities in the context of field archaeology and survey programmes (including the use of metal detectors). These guidelines also serve as a suitable benchmark for the information of land managers and individuals involved in giving consent for archaeological projects whatever the legal status of the site or sites involved. These guidelines therefore can be used to define good practice in the treatment of the archaeological record by responsible artefact hunters. It has to be said, however, that despite three editions, this is a very confused and unbalanced book that results from some very muddled thinking about surface survey. The text refers in several places to the use of metal detectors, Historic England warns recognises that potentially serious negative impacts can result from "the unstructured collection and recording of material from such