5.1: Artefact Hunting on Stratified Sites


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 reinstating any ground and turf as neatly as possible. Stopping any digging and making the landowner aware that you are seeking expert help if you discover something below the ploughsoil [...]
The media however are full of accounts of recent discoveries where an artefact hunter has dug into stratified deposits to retrieve artefacts. Sometimes this has been done 'blindly', on the off-chance of finding something. More often than not it has been because a metal detector has shown there is a large metal mass deep down. Here, a classic case of an important Roman temple site at Wanborough, looted in 1984 onwards to obtain collectable and saleable finds, most of which disappeared without trace or record:
Excavations reveal the damage artefact
hunting had done to a Roman temple in Surrey
Thus we have an example where an Anglo-Saxon grave was dug into at Hollingbourne in Kent:

Not Best Practice by anybody's standards,
 Medway History Trashing in progress (Kent Mercury)
Obviously there is no way in this narrow hole dug in such an undisciplined manner that any kind of archaeological observation or recording of the context that was being destroyed could be done. The same here when a hoard was roughly dug up from stratified deposits below ploughsoil:
Hoard dug out willy-nilly from below plough level
The same goes here (Bellingham), even when a larger area is opened up, the totally undisciplined and uncontrolled manner the loose items are being located and dug up precludes any kind of detailed observation and recording:
Scotty's Bellingham Dig (screenshot)
This hole-digging at Holt Dorset is an even more egregious example:
Holt diggings by metal detectorist trying
to get the rest of a hoard but trashing its context (screenshots)
Tamara Kroftova comments:

"In the photos on this page we see the utter destructiveness of the idea that archaeology is just about "digging up old things" and that digging holes into archaeological sites is something that you don't need any specialist knowledge to do ("anyone can do it"). The fact that none of the people shown here (and in many, many more videos of so-called "citizen archaeologists "having a go") have the slightest idea that there is anything to be ashamed of in the destructive ransacking of the archaeological record is a huge indictment of British archaeology. In the same way it is disturbing that such photos can exist in the public domain and there is not the slightest outcry even from the more 'enlightened' members of the general public (or indeed "professional" archaeologists, or "responsible detectorists"). In my country we have prison sentences for people trashing the archaeological record like that. This is simply a criminal level of irresponsibility and negligence. At least if you are going to do it, do it properly, get advice, don't take on more than you can handle, THAT is taking responsibility!" 


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