The Articles Ten

This is pretty easy to remember, because they both have the same number and similar content:

Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.Paris, France14 November 1970

Article 10
The States Parties to this Convention undertake:
(a) To restrict by education, information and vigilance, movement of cultural property illegally removed from any State Party to this Convention and, as appropriate for each country, oblige antique dealers, subject to penal or administrative sanctions, to maintain a register recording the origin of each item of cultural property, names and addresses of the supplier, description and price of each item sold and to inform the purchaser of the cultural property of the export prohibition to which such property may be subject;
(b) To endeavour by educational means to create and develop in the public mind a realization of the value of cultural property and the threat to the cultural heritage created by theft, clandestine excavations and illicit exports.

Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage of Europe (revised) (Valletta, 1992)

Article 10
Each Party undertakes:
i to arrange for the relevant public authorities and for scientific institutions to pool information on any illicit excavations identified;
ii to inform the competent authorities in the State of origin which is a Party to this Convention of any offer suspected of coming either from illicit excavations or unlawfully from official excavations, and to provide the necessary details thereof;
iii to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that museums and similar institutions whose acquisition policy is under State control do not acquire elements of the archaeological heritage suspected of coming from uncontrolled finds or illicit excavations or unlawfully from official excavations;
iv as regards museums and similar institutions located in the territory of a Party but the acquisition policy of which is not under State control:
    a to convey to them the text of this (revised) Convention;
    b to spare no effort to ensure respect by the said museums and institutions 
    for the  principles set out in paragraph 3 above;
v to restrict, as far as possible, by education, information, vigilance and co-operation, the transfer of elements of the archaeological heritage obtained from uncontrolled finds or illicit excavations or unlawfully from official excavations.

Now, I reckon this blog is doing what it can to get the message out, but this is my hobby. Ask yourselves which of the archaeological organizations you pay for directly (through subscriptions) and indirectly (come out of other pools of money) are actually ACTIVELY doing very much of that education. outereach or whatever they want to call it. Will my Mum back in rural Homeshire hear the truth about metal detecting, the depletion of the archaeological record and the true face of the antiquities market and the harm they are all doing from the local (allegedly public-facing) archaeological organizations of the UK or from her son in far-off Poland? Come on archies, get on with doing something about this.

Illegal Artefact hunting in Poland: Action Pandora (I)

Artefact hunting in Poland is rather like the Detector-archaeology of Denmark, where amateurs with metal detectors take part in conservation and archaeological programmes either as part of teams or as individuals working on the basis of a permit. In Poland however there are difficulties persuading artefact hunters to actually apply for the permits to allow their work to be integrated with the work mof heritage professionals and archaeologists. It is estimated that only about "1%" of detecting is done on the basis of the proper paperwork. It is estimated by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage (MKiDN) that there are some 100 000 active metal detector users in Poland, which means that there is an awful lot of illegal artefact hunting going on. By the same token, very many archaeological and historically important artefacts (in the Polish terminology zabytki) are being taken away from sites with no record of their existence. This is a matter for concern in a country like Poland in which all such objects are automatically state property, for the benefit of all ciitizens. In the past, it has been difficuult to prosecute artefact hunters unless they are caught in the act, or are selling on the internet artefacts that they cannot account for the legal origins of.

The MKiDN and archaeological community have long been pressurising the detecting community to conform to the existing legislation, that was liberalised in 2003 making it easier than it had been for amateurs to apply for permits (while at the same time making it a crime, no longer just an offence, to hunt for artefacts without a permit). This howver had little chance of success against the hardcore criminal collectors. Most of them search for militaria and other artefacts in locations deep in Poland's dense forests where the chances of them being located are next to zero. Most of them avoid selling artefacts openly online or discussing them openly on the several metal detecting forums. They know they are under observation and will be spotted. For the same reason, they keep their collections very much to themselves, especially if they contain old weapons, the Polish authorities are very sensitive about these issues. Nevertheless metal detectorists were frequently targeted during EU-wide actions against culture crime, such as Operation Pandora and Polish police often gained kudos from some of the impressive hauls of confiscated items during such actions.

The Polish artefact hunting and collecting community, unable to clean up their own community decided attack was the best means of defence. Starting in 2021, they began attacking archaeologists and their methods members of staff of the Polish conservation services, including reportedly by harassment. The boasted of their activities in social media. They feigned an interest in  the "well-being of Poland's heritage" as a smoke screen for their activities, which were mainly intended to deflect attention from their own artefact-hunting activities (here digging up and "recovering" artefacts was represented as heritage protection). On their Facebook page the PZE included a series of reports of allegedly improper activities and delays by individual (hard-pressed and severely under resourced) local offices of the conservation services and then the cases they began winning one-by-one in the administrative against them. In just 2022, they started 16 such cases, trying to tie up the conservation services in court proceedings for most of the year. Such an environment does not favour collaboration and it seems that the directorate of the conservation services had had enough of being forced to deal with these deliberately disruptive trouble-makers with their sense of entitlement.

It should be remembered that in recent years (and specially after the legislative changes of 2018) there was a group of law-abiding individuals and collectives of metal detectorists in Poland that fully engaged with the conservation programmes organised by the Polish conservation services and searched and documented their work on the basis of the legally-required paperwork, depositing the finds with museums as required by the permits. These people contributed to our knowledge of the European past.  

But alongside them were those that had no patience to file an application for a permit, or who knew ytthat if they used a permit, they'd actually have to identify the landowner and get permission to search and remove artefacts, and they would lose many of the artefacts because they would be taken for the public collections, instead of the artefact hunter's own collection. The result is that thousands of detector users went out illegally, with no paperwork, chose a site on the basis of how productive it would be of "fanty" (nice finds)  rather than what they'd damage by digging it - but also how visible it was to passers by, so they'd not be disturbed while looting it. This is how most artefact hunting is done in Poland today.

Illegal Artefact Hunting in Poland (II): The "Pandora Paragraphs"

(Second instalment of a two-part article - part one here).
The appointment of a new head of the Historical Monuments Protection Service, Jarosław Sellin (title, Generalny Konserwator Zabytków - GKZ) in January 2022 brought a number of changes. Among them is a solution to Poland's problem with illegal and noisy metal detectorists. A new suite of legislation is currently going through the Polish parliament that might be referred to as the 'Pandora paragraphs'. This incorporates novel digital surveillance methods into the process of 'civilising' (as the Sellin puts it) the metal detectorists and cutting out criminality completely. 

The idea is simple. Having the intention to go out and search a particular property for historical objects with a metal detector, the artefact hunter needs to obtain the landowner's permission. Instead of first applying for a permit, the artefact hunter uses their mobile phone to register the search and supply the relevant personal details, time, extent.  This is done through an application - in fact an entire ICT system called a "Register of Searches" (RPsz). The idea of this system is that it "supports citizens involved in amateur searches for artefacts" but at the same time facilitates the authorities to receive this information about what is happening to these locations, and real time information about each artefact dug up. These have to be entered in real time to avoid charges of illegal appropriation of undocumented artefacts, should a police patrol do a spot check.

Another important feature is that this application is automatically linked to an updated digital map on some form of GIS platform that will contain information of the location and extent of several types of sites and monuments under protection under Poland's several laws (800 000 archaeological sites for example). Polish detectorists have often complained that this information is not easily available to them. Now there will be a dedicated resource to help them stay off these sites (in the register of monuments or included in the Sites and Monuments Record and within 10 meters from them, historical monuments, cultural parks, cemeteries, graves, war graves and places of execution, as well as monuments of extermination and their protection zones). According to the revised law, conducting metal detecting searches in these areas is a crime that exposes the culprit to a fine, restriction of liberty or imprisonment for up to 2 years). If the artefact hunter uses a phone to report detecting on or too near one of these sites, it will be detected by the conservation authorities (even if the searcher does not register a search there, the phone can be traced). Then the procedure can be initiated to punish this offence.   

The attraction for the artefact hunter is that this revision of the legislation eliminates any barriers to getting out in the field, spade in hand, as quickly as possible in the form of an administrative procedure. It allows the searcher to avoid all possible designated no-search areas.* Amateur searches can be conducted there only AFTER first reporting them via the application (non-reporting at the time of beginning the search is also an offence, and again phone records can be checked).

It is in the treatment of the reporting of found artefacts that this system provides the most possibilities for administrators and legislators. It is mandatory for all found objects to be immediately reported, at the moment of discovery, via the application all found objects that may reasonably be presumed to be historical or archaeological finds.** These records stored in the application will later be individually examined by the staff of the provincial conservator's office and declared to be historical artefacts worthy of preservation in a state collection, or artefacts that can be kept (or discarded) by the finder and landowner (or treated as lost property under the regulations regarding this). The staff of the regional conservation offices will have six working days to prepare written feedback (in the form of an administrative decision) on each of the reported artefacts and instructions on further actions.

Obviously present staffing levels in the regional offices run b local government are insufficient for such a process if there are (as the creators of the application assess) 100 000 metal detectorists in Poland. These offices are therefore obliged by this new law to employ more archaeologists to fulfil this role. Rather like Britain's Portable Antiquities Scheme. The latter costs 1.5 million pounds for basic running costs alone, while local government picks up the bill for office space and staff salaries, and eventual expenses if staff have to go into the field. It is estimated (Mike Lewis pers. comm.) that each record in the database costs 30GBP to create, maintain and store. So the Polish government is being very generous with public funds to uphold archaeology. At last. I suppose it is not out of the question that as the database gets bigger, metal detectorists will have to pay some kind of a fee to support its operation. 

Another benefit is that by making use of the application for all people using a metal detector on land, this application immediately creates a full database of the personal data of all metal detectorists in Poland, in addition one linked to a particular phone. These are the new technologies that can be used to keep track of citizens' activities. The application gives law enforcement an ideal tool for detecting and at the same time evidence gathering on cultural property crime. Any seller in a market selling artefacts from metal detecting can be challenged to show a passing police patrol that each artefact on their stall  is on the RPsz database as having been reported and then disclaimed by the state. After 1st May 2024 when this law comes in, any objects not there are by definition of the new law illegal and the seller can be detained on the spot. In the same way, three guys in camo lurking in a forest glade with metal detectors (perhaps located with the aid of phone data) will either be able to show that the search area was previously reported, and all the artefacts in their finds pouches are already in the RPsz database, or again it is arrest on the spot. In the same way, a search of a detectorists house will be speeded up by asking the collector to demonstrate the items they have stored there were excavated before the new law came in (in which case they can show the permits)  and those that were dug subsequently, so should be in the application's database.

All in all therefore, this seems like an interesting resolution of the metal detectorist problem and if used properly a pretty effective way of  'civilising' the milieu - and locking up not a few of the more persistent offenders. 

 

* This nanny state resolution however still does not absolve would-be artefact hunters from the obligation to check the status of the land they intend to search as the database will not contain any information on restrictions arising from other regulations (such as environment-protection laws or information on chemical hazards etc).

** this is a key problem that will have to be resolved. Many Polish artefact hunters question the notion of "archaeological find" in the case of, for example, remains from WW2. They say they are not archaeological material, and so if they go out looking for it, they should not have to register their search. This requires separate documents from the MKiDN establishing with firm guidelines what is and what is not "potentially archaeological material", as this question is crucial to the whole working of the new system. This should not only include metal objects but also worked lithic material and ceramics. It should not be left to the amateur to select out from the material collected in an amateur search what they "think" is "not worth reporting".   

The Dangers of Archaeologists Trusting Information from Artefact Hunters

Dr James Bonsall, 'The Challenges of Working with Metal Detectorists', September 18, 2019

In 2016 I attended the fantastic Fields of Conflict Conference at Trinity College Dublin, where I presented work that reassessed an earlier collaboration with metal detectorists in the UK, in light of some new and rather damning evidence. The Proceedings of that Conference have just been published in a peer-reviewed Open Access book Conference Proceedings: Fields of Conflict, 2016; Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Essentially, my new paper reveals that my earlier assessment of a metal detection finds archive, published in a 2007 volume of the Journal of Conflict Archaeology, was strongly influenced by what are now understood to have been possible fabrications made by the metal detectorists themselves. As my new publication points out:
“This paper should be considered both a retraction and a brief reassessment of the earlier work in light of new evidence, as well as a cautionary tale to researchers on the use of legacy data. The reader is asked to excuse the slightly autobiographical tone of this paper, as it is one of disappointment, embarrassment and reflection, that needs to be addressed.”
If that piqued your interest, then read on, for it is an Open Access publication and free to all, thanks to the fantastic endeavours of editors Tim Sutherland, Damian Shiels, Gavin Hughes and Simon Sutherland.

Bonsall J. 2019. Challenges of Working with Legacy Data from Detectorists: A Case Study in the Fabrication of Evidence, in Sutherland T.L., Shiels D., Hughes G., Sutherland S.H. (eds.) Conference Proceedings: Fields of Conflict, 2016; Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Retrieved from: http://fieldsofconflict.com/c_paper.php?id=31&act=full [Accessed 18 Sep 2019] [the link is now broken].
 

Trying to Make Collecting into Ersatz Archaeology: Denmark's DIME Project

[PACHI]

samarbejder med 29 arkæologiske museer i Danmark

fungerer som digital samling og museum med 100.000 fund 

[cooperates with 29 archaeological museums in Denmark

functions as a digital collection and museum with 100,000 finds] DIME

The DIME (Digitale Metaldetektorfund: dime.au.dk) project was launched five years ago to facilitate the user-driven recording of metal detector finds removed from the archaeological record by members of the public.  Its aim is "to provide a portal for the registering and hence safeguarding of the increasing number of metal detector finds and to make them accessible for the general public and for research" (@@@@@@). The idea is "to realise the potential of recreational metal detecting as a medium to implement an inclusive and democratic approach to heritage management in Denmark and to advance the incorporation of principles of citizen science and crowdsourcing in museum practice". Hmmm.

DIME was apparently supposed to have been begun a year earlier ['Denmark, Inventory of Metal Detector Finds', PACHI Friday, 26 January 2018]. According to Peter Jensen of Aarhus, on the first day of the launch (20th September 2018), there were 6.700 visitors, 289 new users and 760 finds submitted  [PACHI Friday, 21 September 2018 'Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark': a 'new' Database? ]

By May 2019, it is reported that more than 1330 detector users had joined the community and uploaded all together more than 26700 individual finds. 

By March 2021, the DIME portal had recorded its first 100,000 loose metal detected finds (30 months later, a rate of  3333 finds a month) [PACHI Wednesday, 5 May 2021 DIME 100k], handed in by 2600 artefact hunters. That's 38 objects each since the beginning.  In light of the scepticism of the Helsinki Gang to Hardy's work on metal detectorist numbers, it is worth noting the figure of 2600 detectorists is very similar to Hardy's estimate of 2777 (Hardy 2017, 13-4).

100k finds from 2600 detectorists would be only 38 objects each if they'd all been members for the full 30 months. 

At the time of writing, the website owners claim DER ER NU 184.521 FUND I DIME ("there are now 184521 finds in DIME"), though the "search" page gives the number of searchable results as a puzzling "171181". The number of conused by over 2600 amateur archaeologiststributing metal detectorists is given by the phrase: "bruges af over 2600 amatørarkæologer ["used by over 2600 amateur archaeologists"]"  (I presume "amateur archaeologists" is a mistake for artefact hunters - they are NOT the same).

2600 artefact hunters reporting 184,5k finds Oct 2018-March 2023 is just under 71 finds each but if we divide that by the fifty months the Scheme has been operating that's only 1.42 finds a month (17 finds a year).  

One may legitimately ask if this is all these people are finding. According to the search engine, 45381 are coins (mønt). That is 26% of the total. This is the same problem as we have with the UK's Portable Antiquities Scheme and the UK DetectorFindsDatabase, that coins are well overrepresented (on most sites in Britain coin finds will not make up more than 5-6% of the assemblage of metal finds, if that). So it seems quite clear that this "user-driven recording" is leading to a bias introduced into the record.

One therefore notes the proportion of personal ornaments and dress fittings in the table of contents. This looks like a table of collectables rather than the actual contents of the archaeological record of the whole of Denmark

Another problem of having metal detectorists recording their own finds and a lack of handson supervision ensuring data quality are inconsistent use of terms. For example, there are 1687 records of   DirhEms, eighteen of DirhAms  and  even five DirhIms. Useless. 

Equally useless are a large number (how many?) where you have something like this:

Støbekegle · Støberest 209825 https://www.metaldetektorfund.dk/ny/fund/?dimeid=209825 Støbekegle · Støberest med DIME-nummer 209825 blev fundet ved afsøgning d. 08. april 2023 i Frederikssund Kommune. Genstandens tilstand er ikke angivet og den er endnu ikke dateret. Materialet er ikke identificeret og finder har ikke oplyst genstandens mål og vægt.

[trans. Casting cone · Casting residue 209825 Casting cone · Casting residue with DIME number 209825 was found during a search on 08 April 2023 in Frederikssund Municipality. The condition of the item is not stated and it has not yet been dated. The material has not been identified and the finder has not disclosed the object's measurements and weight.]

First of all, the object shown in the photo is not a casting cone, though it might be a sprue, the single photo showing one side is not at all informative. The actual date of the search is not archaeologically as important as where in the whole of the 250,61 km² of Frederikssund Kommune it was found, and with what else. Even if you search for other finds made on the same day from Frederikssund Kommune , you still do not get a clue as to the archaeological background to this find. So what does the record here in DIME tell us about the archaeology of the site from which it came? (spoiler: nothing, this is just 'show and tell', not "citizen science").

While one commends the fact that its not all metal detector finds, one wonders how much information we are getting from bulking out the record with individual burnt stones  ("archaeological observations" in the table of contents) with no information whether they form a cluster in the field with anything else: 

Brændt/ildskørnet flint 132311

Brændt/ildskørnet flint med DIME-nummer 132311 blev fundet ved afsøgning d. 28. august 2021 i Frederikssund Kommune. Genstandens tilstand er ikke angivet og den dateres til stenalder (ca. 250000 f.Kr. - 1701 f.Kr.). Den består af flint, og finder har ikke oplyst genstandens mål og vægt.

Burnt/fire chipped flint with DIME number 132311 was found during a search on 28 August 2021 in Frederikssund Municipality. The condition of the item is not stated and it is dated to the Stone Age (approx. 250000 BC - 1701 BC). It consists of flint, and the finder has not disclosed the object's dimensions and weight.

We may compare that with another one: 

Brændt/ildskørnet flint 209336

Brændt/ildskørnet flint med DIME-nummer 209336 blev fundet ved afsøgning d. 07. april 2023 i Varde Kommune. Genstandens tilstand er ikke angivet og den dateres til oldtid (ca. 250000 f.Kr. - 1066). Den består af flint, og finder har ikke oplyst genstandens mål og vægt. 

Burnt/fire chipped flint with DIME number 209336 was found during a search on 07 April 2023 in Varde Municipality. The condition of the item is not specified and it dates to ancient times (approx. 250000 BC - 1066). It consists of flint, and the finder has not disclosed the object's dimensions and weight.

So, when does "prehistory" finish in Denmark? What, actually is the purpose of such records? What real information do they provide about the archaeology of the site that they came from? Some of the burnt stone records are assigned (for some reason not stated) to the "Neolithic" have at the bottom "To stykker ildskørnet flint fundet tæt på hinanden på en mark hvor der er en overpløjet gravhøj" or "Et stykke ildskørnet/brændt flint, som indikerer, at der er en overpløjet gravhøj i nærheden, eller en form for bopladsaktivitet [A piece of fire-cracked/burnt flint indicating that there is a ploughed burial mound nearby, or some form of settlement activity]". I guess Danish metal detectorists don't look much at the remains left when a very old large tree is uprooted and burnt to get rid of the roots. Or they do not know about what remains a charcoal clamp or lime kiln leave. How does a metal detectorist date a loose piece of burnt stone in the ploughsoil (and if there is a method, why is it not mentioned in the record)? 

Again, amateurish handheld photos where part of the object is obscured, no scale. Can't these "citizen scientists" do any better? Note, on the front page of DIME is a "how to take better photos" guide - obviously, not everyone is reading it, but hey, doesn't matter does it because they are all anonymous.  

Then you can visit the front page... "10 SPÆNDENDE FUND", it shouts. Clicking on the links to these "exciting" items, you get things like this: "Dirhem 209946 Dirhem med DIME-nummer 209946 blev fundet ved afsøgning d. 09. april 2023 i Thisted Kommune [...]" with a huge narrativisation - presumably by the finder who reckons themself to be a bit of an expert on Islamic silver coins... which reads like anything written by a coiney.

Typebeskrivelse [...], Baggrund [...], Symbolsk betydning [...], Typer og variationer [...] [Reference-illustration] [...], Særlige kendetegn og forvekslingsmuligheder [...] . [...] Læs mere

Type description [...], Background [...], Symbolic Meaning [...], Types and Variations [...] [Reference Illustration] [...], Special characteristics and possibilities of confusion [...] . [...] Read more

Silver Economies, Monetisation and Society in Scandinavia AD 800–1100. Edited by James Graham-Campbell , Søren Sindbæk and Gareth Williams . Aarhus: Aarhus University Press 2011.

Yet, the findspot within "Thisted Kommune" is nowhere given, and: "Genstandens tilstand er ikke angivet og den dateres til vikingetid (ca. 750 - 1066). Den består af sølv, og finder har ikke oplyst genstandens mål og væg ["The condition of the object is not specified and it is dated to the Viking Age (approx. 750 - 1066). It consists of silver, and the finder has not disclosed the object's dimensions and weight "]. The photo is too small, has no scale, shows only one side of the object, no attempt has been made to transcribe the fragment of the inscription shown or describe the typology of the coin itself. The further reading is to a general book, rather than one that enlightens the reader on that particular coin. This is not "citizen science", but "show and tell". It is not related to the archaeology of the site (or landscape) it was pulled from, but a wandering and repetitive object-centric tale. 

The portal promises a definition of the term "Danefae" (property of the state, must be handed-in)... but no such page appears in the portal, despite it operating five years... On the other hand, one can see many examples of the pandering-talk that the UK\'s PAS uses to address artefact hunters and their concerns, which is a bit pathetic to see alongside the portal's (anonymous) authors' attempts to present Danish artefact hunters as the best in the world in terms of their responsible and public-spirited behaviour ("citizen scientists" all of 'em). The details of what these "citizen scientists" are doing to the public's heritage are kept from the public: "Can others see my locations? "No! Finds and private information are only visible to you, museum archaeologists and researchers with special access", ''The closest public users or other detector users come to is the municipality in which a find was made".  So what kind of a public record and transparency/responsibility is that? What are "my locations" in archaeological terms? 

Læs mere

Dobat, A. S., Christiansen, T. T., Jessen, M. D., Henriksen, M. B., Jensen, P., Laursen, S. V., Ruhe, R.,
Holst, M. K., & Arntsen, F. (2019). The DIME project: Background, status and future perspectives of a user driven recording scheme for metal detector finds as an example of participatory heritage. Danish Journal of Archaeology, 8, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.7146/dja.v8i0.111422

 

British metal detecting: Context, Archaeology and Commerce: A Harness Fitting from Buckinghamshire on the UK Market

A text highlighting a number of important issues that clearly merit further discussion concerning the exploitation of the British archaeological record by hobbyists merely as a source of collectables, and the increasing commercial demand for this type of collectable [P.M. Barford and David W. J. Gill 2021 'A Harness Fitting from Buckinghamshire on the UK Market' J. Art Crime 17 (2022), 17-**]

Abstract
In February 2021 a Late Iron Age harness brooch was sold at auction in Derbyshire, England. The brooch had been found by an artefact hunter in Buckinghamshire, though there appear to be conflicting reports of when this took place. The paper explores the circumstances of the discovery, and the eve of sale recording of the brooch by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The process of documenting the find is examined and concerns are raised about the lack of transparency.  

British Metal Detecting: New Official Estimate of Scale of Collection-Driven Exploitation of Archaeological Record in Britain

     rough visualisation of a trend       

 
[PACHI] As repeatedly mentioned on my blogs, the public-funded Portable Antiquities Scheme has consistently failed to give the public any official estimate of the number of people exploiting the archaeological record as a source of collectable artefacts. The best they could do, after many years of the question being raised and their refusal to address it, was in August 2014 in their Guide for Researchers (p. 14). Based on previous estimates (including the NCMD, Thomas, Barford and Heritage Action) the PAS said eight years ago: "we estimate that there are around 9,600 metal detector users across England and Wales". Rather low, I would say. As I have written elsewhere, I accept Hardy's (2017) figure of 27000 as much more accurate. Though I have not written this up, I have also in recent months begun to suspect that this number should have been upped to 30000 (blue square in the figure), leaving the PAS' 2014 attempt well behind.

I was therefore very interested and disturbed to see the PAS' new estimate, fresh from the press. This appeared first in an odd two page document published recently by the PAS 'Managing/Meeting Finder’s Expectations' currently accessible (only) from the website of the National Council for Metal Detecting (why not the PAS website?). Of course, it being the dozy old PAS, they cannot write it clearly in relation to what they actually, themselves, do. Look at this:

There are as many as 40,000 people metal-detecting in the UK, and although PAS is keen to record as many finds as possible, it is not practical for FLOs to record every find made by each detectorist, as well as finds made by the wider public also.

Duh. The PAS and FLOs DO NOT cover the whole UK. They are responsible for recording finds from England and Wales, so why give a total for all detectorists in two other countries for which they are not responsible? On what are these figures based? Of course they do not say. One hopes a paper is already in print backing this up (but really, as a a long-time PAS-watcher, I'm willing to bet that there is not).

[UPDATE: It surfaced again soon after, also without any reference to where they were getting the numbers forom. This time it was on page 3 (by Hartwig Fischer Director of the British Museum) of the Portable Antiquities Scheme Annual Report 2021 where it says simply: "There might be as many as 40,000 active metal-detectorists in the United Kingdom" (note: "might be" now)].

By the way, if the population of the UK is 67.33 million, and the number of detector using artefact hunters in the UK is 40,000, it means that one in 1683 citizens is [or is it "might be"?] a metal detectorist. That's pretty disturbing.

What can we do with these figures? Let's see. The PAS database (for Saturday 11th December 2021 until Sunday 11th December 2022) contains 43018 records containing information on the findspots of 53312 artefacts. Unfortunately there is no information given on the number of metal detector using finders that represents. Since that total includes items reported by members of the general public too, how many artefact hunters are responsibly coming forward with artefacts from collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record for recording in England and Wales? And how many are not? The NCMD says that there are a number of reasons why 'finders' are not coming forward responsibly with what they have dug up - trying now to shift the blame for falling reporting numbers onto the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

The PAS is a national (UK-wide) organization, so it is worth comparing the situation in Scotland where in the latest Treasure Trove Unit report available online (2019-20) we find that (p. 12) that 1732 Treasure finds were reported by artefact hunters + archaeologists = chance finders, as law requires, all of the finders opted to remain anonymous (report p. 34). Yet Hardy's estimate is that there are 1450 artefact hunters in Scotland (there are other estimates - but they all have the same implications). So in Scotland you can call yourself a "metal detectorist" if all you find is one object a year? By the same token, is a Scottish "angler" a bloke that catches on tiddly perch after a year of sitting on a folding stool silently staring sadly at a body of water? My feeling is that Scottish detectorists are finding more than they report.

So how does the PAS's estimate for detectorists in "the UK" break down to England and Wales? The low (and I would stress that) estimates of Hardy (2017) are as follows: England and Wales 27000, Scotland 1450, Northern Ireland, 225. For the lack of better figures, breaking down the PAS' new estimate of "40000" in the same proportions would give us the following: England and Wales 37600, Scotland 2000, Northern Ireland, 400 (but on what basis would PAS be assessing the number of detectorists in both these latter regions, anyway?).

Taking this one step further, applying (mainly for consistency with earlier estimates) the figures established by us for the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter,* those 37600 artefact hunters would be finding a nominal 1,137,000 recordable artefacts a year. This is a bit of a problem for the supporters of collaboration with artefact hunters. The PAS database barely has one million records after over quarter of a century of "partnership" when the present figures suggest that this should be the annual growth rate at the potential current pace of erosion.

If the PAS were recording the 80000 items a year it had been achieving in the pre-Pandemic past, according to figures derived from the Scheme's own most recent estimate, the Scheme was recording one in 14.2 hoiked artefacts. One in fourteen, 7.1%. Seven percent. That means ninety three percent of artefact hunted objects hoiked out of the archaeological record have disappeared with neither trace nor record, just leaving a blind-dug hole in its place, a massive obliteration of the archaeological record. That in itself is a massive indictment of the system and the archaeologists that are content to shrug shoulders and turn their backs on destruction of the archaeological record on such a scale. Using 2022's figures, 43018 records, gives an even more scandalous result, one that British archaeologists will snootily ignore. According to PAS' own figures, perhaps just one in 26.44 hoiked objects has been getting reported on the PAS database. That's pretty pathetic and very disturbing.

I am 100% sure that PAS and the great and good of British archaeology, along with their partners the metal detectorists on their forums, will dismiss this post as "wrong". They will point out that their "critics don't know" 25% (or whatever) of detectorists are incompetent oafs who never find anything at all - ignoring the fact that these are already accounted for in the HA algorithm's figures. So PAS and all your supporters, WHAT are the alternative figures?

And while on the topic, in the past few years, PAS has insisted on getting involved with increasing numbers of lowbrow TV shows centred around collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record (Britain's Secret Treasures, Henry Coles, the Michaela Strachan junk) on the grounds that they can promote their message. All that has happened is the number of metal detectorists has gone up, and the amount of recording being done has gone down. Time for any normal organization to reassess its policies. Will the PAS? 

* which since they were collected directly and personally, I prefer to the higher rates established by Hardy 2017

Reference cited: 

Portable Antiquities Scheme 2022, ‘Managing/Meeting Finder’s Expectations’,

       Pdf document 7 December 2022 2022 online access: https://www.ncmd.co.uk/wp-
       content/uploads/2022/12/Managing-FLO-Expectations-1.pdf