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

British Metal Detecting: "Citizen/Archaeology for All" in Not-Unicornland

 

      "Responsible" detectorists in a landscape   
 

[PACHI] In a recent Channel Five TV show on artefact hunting "Digging up Treasure", the presence of the president of the Council for British Archaeology as one of the three presenters (!) of the show was justified by saying that through its presentation and the "guidelines" accompanying the programme it promotes "Responsible Detecting" in the UK - which is presented as "a good thing". 

I totally disagree. Quite apart from the fact that it is now very clear the programme's "presentation" does no such thing, there are unanswered questions about its own ethical issues, and the guidelines are space-filling crap, this simply has not been thought-through.

1) To make artefact hunting and collecting into "archaeology for all" or "citizen archaeology" and not merely looting, there has to be full mitigation of the damage done by taking random collectables out of the archaeological record. And let us say, for the sake of discussion that all this mitigation requires is (as mainstream British archaeology asserts) an x-marks the spot record in the PAS.* 

2) Obviously, this means not promoting artefact hunting to a degree or in a way that produces a lot of new detector users  beyond the number that the Portable Antiquities Scheme with the resources and staff it currently has cannot cope. That seems pretty obvious. No? 

3) Anything beyond this means that archaeological contexts are trashed by collectors, findspots and artefacts go unrecorded or under-recorded, information is lost. This is information that is lost through current policies and approaches to a damaging, erosive and exploitative minority hobby.

4) So what's the magic number? What is the maximum number of artefact hunters that we can expect could be recruited to do "citizen/archaeology for all" in the current situation?

5) Before the pandemic, PAS was recording around 80000 artefacts a year (artefacts, not records). Annual reports say that just over 90% of them (artefacts not records) were generated by "metal detectorists" (artefact hunters and collectors). That's 72000 artefacts (not records) a year, pre-pandemic. Several official statements (for example, here) suggest that more are offered for recording, but the PAS has not the capacity to deal with more  and have to be selective. Those 72000 artefacts are the current upper limit.

6) Netnographic research that Heritage Action did in the early 2000s, together with contemporary sources (including surveys done by detectorists and artefact-hunter-supportive archaeologists) indicated that the statistical-average detectorist was generating just over 30 recordable finds a year (recordable does not mean the finder recognised any obligation to get them recorded). That's the figure that the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter uses. [It is possible that improvements in detectors in the past decade and a half mean that number should be increased]. 

7) If therefore the PAS has its resources stretched mitigating detection by recording 72000 artefacts (not records), it means that the current carrying capacity of the PAS is 72000/30 = 2400 artefact hunters. Anything above that means that information is lost, inadequate mitigation is taking place. 

8) How many artefact hunters were in Britain pre-Covid19-Pandemic? I have elsewhere presented evidence that the figure of 27000 seems a perfectly reasonable one. I am currently inclined to believe that by now an estimate of 30000 is not out of the question. 

9) The difference between 27000 and the PAS carrying capacity of 2400 is pretty stark. 

10) So, in my view, in the real word, as it exists in today's Britain and not some airy-fairy 'sunlit uplands' of  Unicornland, archaeologists promoting artefact hunting as a hobby that everyone can take up to do "archaeology for all" on top of the numbers that do so is extremely myopic and irresponsible. 

I am prepared to discuss that with any archaeologist who disagrees with me on factual grounds rather than unicorn-lore. 

*This is nonsense of course, the archaeological context of every object hoiked out of a site or assemblage is much more than "where on a map". 

 

Green Saharas, Grey Markets: Commercial Exploitation of North African Prehistory, an Overview

It is nice to get some notice taken of one's work from time to time. The issue of the damage done to sites by artefact hunting tends to be dominated by metal detectors, here I step aside from that. It was noticed (though I am not sure I agree with the bit at the end) robertvernet Publié le 13 juin 2022, on the blog 'Préhistoire de l'Ouest Saharien Un projet d’inventaire de l’archéologie préhistorique dans l’ouest du Sahara' ("Une plongée dans le pillage archéologique du Sahara en août 2019"): 

Un archéologue, P.M. Barford, a consacré un mois, en 2019, à explorer les sites internet vendant, au Etats-Unis et en Europe, des pièces archéologiques paléolithiques et néolithiques provenant du Sahara :

Paul M. Barford Green Saharas, Grey Markets: Commercial Exploitation of North African Prehistory, an Overview Archaeologia Polona, vol. 58 : 2020 : 311 – 336
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2020/05/artefacts-from-northern-africa.html

C’est un travail méticuleux de description des raisons poussant les acteurs de ce commerce illicite (vendeurs et acheteurs), de leurs méthodes, des résultats (impressionnant tableau des « prises » (!) pendant seulement un mois) et des conséquences sur le patrimoine des pays concernés. Une bibliographie conséquente permet de se faire une idée plus concrète (cf. par exemple : Barker, 2018 ; di Lernia, 2005 ; Keenan, 2013 ; Fay, 2013 ; UNESCO, 1970 ; Vernet, 1995, 2000, 2011, 2013). La conclusion est d’une grande clarté :

« The number of Saharan Neolithic artefacts currently on sale online is disturbingly high. Although it seems that the turnover of this trade is not as rapid as other artefact claim that since the mid 1990s, several million artefacts have been removed from sites in the Sahara and scattered on the international antiquities market, and this pran industrial scale. It seems that some areas have been stripped of diagnostic material. As long as a lucrative market for this material exists, the extent of the areas stripped out will only spread. In the Sahara, the majority of Neolithic sites consist of shallow surface spreads of material and the bases of negative features exposed desert conditions that have prevailed here for six millennia. As such, they are extremely fragile and sensitive to interference. A single unrecorded search episode removing the most collectible (and therefore diagnostic) material will irreversibly alter not only the composition of the site assemblage but, above all, the pattern of distribution of material that constitutes the main body of evidence that the site holds. In analysing prehistoric landscapes in the desert, the stratigraphic, artefactual and environmental data from single sites are not the main type of evidence. Desert surveys analyse the cumulative distribution of elation to each other but also to the geological effects of changing landscapes and natural environment. Rendering unrecognizable sites and findspots forming part of those patterns disrupts that research. […] Artefact hunting, alongside erosion and other geological processes, agricultural expansion, military activity, road construction, vandalism or mining and other extractive industries, is just one of the threats to archaeological sites in the fragile environment of the Sahara region. Yet it is one that arguably we can still be doing something about. Why aren’t we? » 

Références

Barker, A. 2018. Looting, the antiquities trade, and competing valuations of the past. Annual Review of Anthropology 47: 455–474.

Di Lernia, S. 2005. Incoming tourism, outgoing culture: tourism, development and cultural heritage in the Libyan Sahara. Journal of North African Studies 10(3–4): 441–457.

Fay, E. 2013. Trading in antiquities on eBay: the changing face of the illicit trade in antiquities. PhD Thesis, Keele University October 2013. Electronic document: http://eprints.keele.ac.uk/197/1/Fay%20PhD%202013.pdf.

Keenan, J. 2003. Tourism, development and conservation: a Saharan perspective. In D. J. Mattingly, S. McLaren, E. Savage, Y. al-Fasatwi, and K. Gadgood (eds), Natural resources and cultural heritage of the Libyan Desert: proceedings of a conference held in Libya. 14–21 December 2002, 14–21. London.

UNESCO 1970. Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, Export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. Paris.

Vernet R. : Tourisme saharo-sahélien et archéologie : dangers et remèdes, communication au colloque de Chinguetti : Cités et patrimoine culturel du Sahara et du Sahel, oct. 1995, La Revue Anthropologique, Paris, 1996, p. 166-169

Vernet R. : Le pillage des sites archéologiques mauritaniens : des conséquences dramatiques, Colloque “Le Patrimoine Culturel en Mauritanie”, Nouakchott, 1999 ; Nouakchott, 2000 : 239-244

Vernet R. : Souvenirs, pillage, modernité et archéologie : un siècle de détérioration du patrimoine préhistorique en Mauritanie
In : Halte au pillage, G. Compagnon, éd., Éd. Errance, 2011 : 375-389

Vernet R., Choplin A. : Disparition d’un patrimoine archéologique : le cas de Nouakchott (1955-2008). Cahiers de l’AARS, 2013,n° 16 : 251-257

Vernet, R. and Le Quellec, J.-L. : Recension de : Eckhard Klenkler, Robert Dreikluft, Mark Milburn and Z. Jiang 2016. Sahara. Material culture of early communities. Cahiers de l’AARS, 2017 – 19: 295–297.

Fish-in-Barrel "Archaeology", Metal Detecting as Imagined "Citizen Science" in the Czech Republic

[PACHI]

Citizen science  

The 'English Disease' is spreading even in Central Europe:
Balázs Komoróczy 2022 Archaeology, Metal Detecting, and Citizen Science in the Czech Republic

Abstract
Although the legal conditions are perceived as restrictive, metal detecting has become a popular activity in the Czech Republic. In 2017, a questionnaire survey revealed that a significant segment of this community is made up of passionate people interested in history and archaeology. The majority of professional archaeologists consider metal-detecting finds to be important and believe that cooperation with metal detectorists is necessary, beneficial, and acceptable. A collaborative project called “Joint Forces in Order to Discover the Common Archaeological Heritage of the South Moravian Region” aims to create conditions for citizen science among the metal detectorists in the region. By using tools such as expert workshops for the employees of professional institutions, meetings, educational workshops and field activities with interested members of the public, and production and distribution of printed and digital information materials, the partners in the program have long endeavored to improve the mutual understanding of all relevant actors of society and administration. The creation of circles of citizen collaborators is in progress in several archaeological institutions; nevertheless, this process is far from over. In 2020, with the creation of the Portal of Amateur Collaborators, this activity acquired a unified digital scheme for the registration of finds.

Although the Czech scheme public finds recording scheme calls itself "PAS", if you look at the blurb https://amcr-info.aiscr.cz/?page=pas, it is a quite different concept to the UK's ineffective @findsorguk . More akin to the UK's Proposed Institute of Detectorists. I am not sure what that really achieves apart from more dots on distribution maps.

Their flagship publication seems to be:
Balázs Komoróczy, Petra Golanova, Matej Kmosek, Marek Vlach, Michaela Kmošková 2020, 'New metal and glass finds from the Late Iron Age in South Moravia (CZ). The contribution of citizen science to knowledge of the La Tène settlement structure in the Břeclav Region', Přehled výzkumů 61/2.

Abstract
The ‘Celts Beneath the Pálava Hills’ exhibition was installed at the end of the summer of 2020 at the Regional Museum in Mikulov. The museum prepared the exhibition in cooperation with the Moravian Museum and the Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno. Along with other unique exhibits, an assemblage of 70 metal artefacts stored in Dolní Dunajovice in the study collection of the Research Centre for the Roman and Great Migration periods of the Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, was chosen to be displayed for this event. The article presents 47 small artefacts made of copper alloys, 18 coins and five glass artefacts from 17 cadastral units, which enriched the exhibition with a variety of characteristic LT C and D1 finds. They do not form a complete collection, as their common denominator is that they were found in 2011–2017 solely by metal detectorists working together with the archaeologists from the workplace where the finds are stored. These never-before-published artefacts and the qualities of each deserve to be presented both to the public and the professional community. These artefacts include finds which, in the context of the Late Iron Age of south Moravia, are unique objects (including two bronze figurines) that are significant contributions to the clarification and differentiation of the topography of the La Tène settlement structure in the studied region.

Read this carefully, and you get the impression that these detectorists (called for some reason "citizen scientists") have been handing in artefacts they've been finding and aan exhibition was put together to make use of them. Whether or not the dots on the distribution map tell anyone anything much of use about the "the La Tène settlement structure", what it tells us is about the structure of detectorist search areas - some of which were known sites anyway.

In any case this collaboration consists of tekkies bringing stuff to the academics, cap in hand, for them to do their artefactological/typological bla-bla (and for some unfathomable reason metal analyses) publish and keep. That's not "citizen science", it is treating the services of the metal detectorist in an instrumental way, and its value as archaeology I would say is highly doubtful. The colourful dot-distribution map means, precisely, what in terms of the archaeological contexts of the sites these loose typological geegaws were hoiked from? So, they have pictures and descriptions of loose scattered "things" taken from deposits, but what do the latter mean?

What is "citizen science", apart from a trendy term currently being usefully employed in grant-applications? What kind of "science" is using a commercially (readily) available specifically designed dedicated tool for finding buried metal to... uh (checks notes).. find buried metal and dig it up? That is not science, any more than beachcombing, birdwatching, bottledump digging and beermat collection are.

Which definition of science does using a metal detector to detect a piece of metal and dig it up to pocket it comply with? https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science.

Definition of science
1a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: 'NATURAL SCIENCE'
2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study 'the science of theology'
b: something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge 'have it down to a science
3: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws 'cooking is both a science and an art'
4 capitalized : 'CHRISTIAN SCIENCE'
5: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

British Metal Detecting: "Alan's" Legacy - A Collection and Some Drawings of "Antiquities", and a Lot of Gaps in the Archaeological Record

 

[PACHI] On social media, Dr Jenny Durrant (Hampshire FLO working for Britain's Portable Antiquities Scheme) writes: 

[It is] a privilege to sort the legacy collection of detectorist Alan. Many potential museum acquisitions here, lots beautifully recorded in notebooks. Legacies will become a common situation, but it's impossible for many museums to acquire them. [...] The notebooks are essential for matching objects to find spots - many of which are the other side of the country. So there's some repatriation to happen.

We learn from another FLO that "Alan was such an accomplished artist and illustrator. Sad that he's no longer with us, but a privilege to work with him in Hampshire". The photo shows a page of a notebook with a very accomplished pencil drawing of an early medieval mount, but carefully aligned so you can't see what is written by it. One assumes that here is the information being used that is "essential" to "match the objects with their findspots" but cannot tell how detailed that information might be. Of course if the finds had all been PAS-recorded beforehand, there'd be no findspot-hunting to be done at public expense and the cost of Dr Durant's time now.

The photo shows basically a heap of objects on a table, some are grouped (by the collector or the FLO?) loose in plastic containers like used ice-cream tubs and the suchlike, some in small groups on opened polybags. Virtually none of the ones seen in this photo seem to have been stored in individual, labelled, polybags. None seem to be associated with any kind of label, though it is difficult to be sure, the ones nearer the camera seem not to bear any catalogue number in ink that would link each individual find to an external paper or digital record.

Part of "Alan's Legacy"

It is to be hoped that there will be some kind of publication summarising this collection and making available information of the numbers of artefacts of the broad categories there are, and how many items it is in total. So few of these old collections ever do end up being characterised in the archaeological literature. That's a shame, as this kind of collecting is a poorly documented phenomenon and I think (from what I see on the forums) there is a lot of misunderstanding that arises because of this. Since this kind of collecting is a major consumer of the archaeological record and (with 27000+ metal detectorists) it is a major area of contact between the public and the past, which is why (as a result of/ and factor affecting/ PAS liaison) it should be being better documented. 

Someone asked in the thread about the comment "[these 27000] legacies will become a common situation, but it's impossible for many museums to acquire them". they asked why this is. Victoria Barlow of Maidstone Museums says that currently, "We have a hold on acquisitions because of staff capacity. I couldn’t even think of taking on a collection like this. It would be unethical to accept items we couldn’t accession, catalogue or make available to the public in anything like a reasonable timescale".

Dr Durrant adds:

Also, finds in private collections may be disassociated from their findspots - not written down, or on laptops for which no-one knows the password. Museums collect geographical areas, so unprovenanced finds become homeless [...] Also worth remembering that even if a detectorist lived locally their finds may be from various counties.

I dealt with one where this was the case, but some items were even from other countries, gathered on his honeymoon.

Another aspect is that whatever the collector may have intended (intended to put in writing but did not), heirs may have different ideas about what they will do with the antiquities in a collection. The individual items often don't have a high market value, but aren't worthless, look at eBay or the finds valuation pages of metal detecting magazines. A collection like this is worth ££££s Somehow the landowners handing this stuff to collectors for free seem unaware of this. When a collector dies their heirs may also be unaware and just dump it all in a skip when cleaning out the house after a death, others may sell them as a job lot to somebody to resell, or some may take them to a museum to give them first pickings, or try to get the museum to buy. In the 1960s, members of the public finding artefacts who did not want to hang onto them simply donated items to museums. With the rise in metal detecting this all seems to have changed and man of them then expected the museum to buy the artefacts.

The point is though that the table-top full (and potentially plus the big plastic bin full) of loose unlabelled artefacts with some cutely-drawn and maybe listed in a notebook is no substitute for a proper record of the removal of these items from a site which (x-marks the spot findspot or not) is trashed by being dug over in the search for collectables. And that, too, is "Alan's Legacy".