´óÏó´«Ã½

Treasures from the fields

Metal detectorists. You may have seen them singly, or in pairs, or in groups. Come rain or shine, sweeping across the fields, listening attentively to the signal from their machine, eyes fixed to the ground. Then a signal, and a pause to examine the source, and a careful moving away of the soil, to examine the focus of their attention.

And what are the fruits of their labours? Very often a corroded nail or two, or a modern mechanical relict of a passing Massey Ferguson. At other times the detectorist may find something more interesting - a tangible piece of antiquity. It may be a George III half-penny, a lead token, a fragment from a Roman brooch, a 17th-century lead musket ball, or a decorative metal fitting from the end of a long since decayed leather strap. In fact, just about anything.

More rarely, the detector may pinpoint something of great significance, such as the remarkable Winchester Hoard. This find - two sets of late Iron Age gold jewellery - was discovered by Kevan Halls in 2000 and reported to the local Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) Finds Liaison Officer. It was one of the most exciting metal detector finds of the decade, and because Mr Halls reported the discovery quickly, and carefully recorded the findspot, it meant a follow-up archaeological excavation was possible. There were no distinguishable archaeological features, or further remains, beneath the plough-soil, which suggests that the hoard may have been deposited in a shallow pit, possibly as an offering.

Another significant find was that of the Ringlemere Cup, a gold ceremonial cup, about four and half inches high, beaten out of a solid lump of gold by Bronze Age artisans. Detectorist Cliff Bradshaw discovered it in 2001, on farmland at Ringlemere in Kent. He contacted the Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the local PAS Finds Liaison Officer with news of his find, and the Trust was able to excavate the site with funding from English Heritage. The team confirmed that the site was a round barrow and that the cup may have represented grave goods from a central burial.

What can we learn from the diverse range of all these finds? Can they contribute to our understanding of the past? Or can the use of detectors do more harm than good?

Conflicts of interest

A silver livery badge found in Sussex  © A 1995 survey on metal detecting in England, by the Council for British Archaeology, pinpointed some gloomy facts about the impact of the hobby. It concluded that of the hundreds of thousands of artefacts recovered by detectorists every year, only a fraction was being reported to museums.

Even worse, three-quarters of archaeological field units had experienced raids of their excavations by detectorists, and between 1988 and 1995 illicit metal detector users damaged at least 188 scheduled ancient monuments (archaeological sites of national importance, protected under law, where special permission is required to dig or to use metal detectors).

Two particularly high-profile cases of looting were the illegal removal of a hoard of fine Romano-British bronzes from Icklingham in Suffolk in the 1980s, and the plunder of the site of a Roman Temple at Wanborough in Surrey in the 1990s.

This kind of looting appals archaeologists and responsible detectorists alike, because the combined effect of both looting and non-reporting of finds is that crucial information about archaeological sites is being lost. Why? It all comes down to the question of 'context'.

The importance of context

Investigating the area around a find  © Archaeology lives and breathes on context. Knowing exactly what comes from where, the soils in which it lies, and the relationships or associations between artefacts, features and other forms of evidence, is critical for interpreting archaeological remains.

An object on its own may tell us quite a lot. For instance, using some of the many scientific techniques available, we might find evidence about the technologies and resources used in its manufacture. Or the form and design of the object, and the way it shows evidence of patterns of wear or repair, might tell us about its function and use. Techniques such as radiocarbon dating also allow us to work out the age of some artefacts. Yet there may be little point in doing this work, if we know nothing of where the object was found.

By contrast, understanding an object in relation to other objects, and to the deposits in which they are found, can allow a much more powerful level of interpretation. An artefact of one type, for instance, which can be dated, can - if looked at in its proper archaeological context - also help date whole layers and features and other kinds of artefacts, which cannot be dated in any other way.

In the light of this, some archaeologists have advocated a much stronger regulation of metal detecting, but others suggest that the best approach is to foster a responsible approach among the detecting community, through better liaison and education.

Finding common ground

Coins hold vital clues of the past  © In Norfolk for instance, the late Tony Gregory recognised early on that not all detectorists behave irresponsibly. He set about forming fruitful links with those whose primary interest was in the sense of discovery and a real interest in what they found.

For instance he sought the permission required for a group of detectorists to systematically survey the Roman temple site at Caistor St Edmund. This was to assess the damage being done by groups of treasure-hunting thieves who were regularly working over the monument by cover of dark, and to pre-empt any further damage. Bit by bit Tony and successive archaeologists built a lasting relationship with responsible detectorists across the county, who helped foil this vandalism.

In areas where archaeologists have been constructive in this way, detectorists are much more confident in reporting their finds. And they have been recovering a lot of useful material - metal detected finds have, for instance, significantly contributed to understanding Iron Age coinage, and also the deposition of Bronze Age metal hoards in south-east England. Finds can be reported to Finds Liaison Officers of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and metal detector users continue to contribute to the archaeological process and historical studies.

Detecting the facts

Tony Pollard and Neil Oliver - the men in the trench  © For battlefield archaeology, carefully executed metal detecting surveys have revealed invaluable information. Take for instance the work on Culloden undertaken for the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Two Men in Trench. Conversely, unsystematic metal detecting, without reporting or recording, has denuded some battlefields of crucial evidence.

Detecting on cultivated land - which is where most detecting takes place - is also beginning to tell us a lot about the vast impact of ploughing on archaeological sites. The discovery of grave goods typical of Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in East Anglia has resulted in the identification of previously unknown sites, and has also indicated the vast scale of attrition of archaeological remains - with many crucial clues lost under the plough in intensively farmed areas.

Increasing anecdotal evidence from detector finds also indicates that the action of fertiliser, and other agricultural chemicals, on cultivated earth is damaging many artefacts - particularly metal ones - buried in the soil.

Reporting and recording

Reporting and recording are essential for unlocking information from detectorists' finds. In the UK, regulation varies, so that in some parts of the country all finds have to be reported, in other parts, only some.

In Scotland all finders of archaeological artefacts are required by 'Treasure Trove' law to report everything that they find. More recently the law in Northern Ireland has become more stringent, and a licence is now required even to search for archaeological objects.

In England and Wales, however, the law relating to mandatory reporting is comparatively liberal. Under the Treasure Act only a limited range of categories of find have to be reported to a local coroner (although recently the categories of finds that must be reported have been broadened). To help prompt reporting finders and/or landowners are eligible for a share in a full market-value reward for items declared 'Treasure'.

In the absence of the mandatory reporting of all finds in England and Wales, there has been a lot of work to promote voluntary reporting. In 1997 a pilot scheme began in selected areas, where Finds Liaison Officers were appointed, making it easier to have archaeological finds identified and recorded. The initial pilot of this Portable Antiquities Scheme proved a great success, and the reporting of finds shot up in the areas where Finds Liaison Officers were appointed - 37,518 archaeological objects were recorded in the year 2000-2001, a great improvement on previous years.

In 2002, Lottery funding was given to support a three-year expansion of the Scheme across all of England and Wales from April 2003 until the end of March 2006.

Liaison and research

Recording a findspot using a Global Positioning System device  © Detectorists are also now being given greater opportunities for using their detectors in archaeologically meaningful ways. For instance, detector users from seven clubs in Kent are assisting archaeologists with the excavation of a small Roman town south of Ashford. Others have been working with academic archaeologists and the local Finds Liaison Officer to learn more about the specific phases of Roman occupation in East Yorkshire.

Remarkable results have come from the recording of precise findspots for every coin and artefact using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, and from combining these results with information from geophysical surveys and aerial photography. At Grafton Regis, Northamptonshire, an extensive systematic metal detecting survey by the Midland Archaeological Research Society is helping us understand the Civil War siege there.

Code for conduct

Even for those who follow proper metal detecting procedures (see 'code' below), there still remain problems - many detectorists lack the specialist resources to conserve their finds, and may unintentionally treat them in ways that harm them. There are ethical dilemmas about whether it is right to amass personal collections of material inaccessible to more detailed research, or to sell such collections on the open market. Looting still takes place. There are also concerns that the payment of rewards for 'Treasure' finds sends out a questionable message. But it is crucial to work through these issues, so that in the long term we all gain a greater understanding of our archaeological inheritance.

Main points of the code

Responsible metal detecting involves:

- avoiding protected sites, or land in the near vicinity (because areas of archaeological sensitivity and the boundaries of protected sites may not always correspond);

- obtaining permission from the relevant landowner (and tenant if different to the landowner) to use a detector;

- never trespass;

- never assuming that anyone is allowed to detect on public land (such as parks or other Council owned land), or on open land in the countryside - there may be local byelaws or other regulations forbidding this;

- plotting and logging the location of all finds as accurately as possible;

- reporting all finds, so that they can be identified and the information they provide can pass into the historical record;

- reporting possible treasure finds to the Coroner for the relevant district;

- working on ground already disturbed, within plough depth;

- seeking expert help if something large is discovered below the plough-soil, or a concentration of material, or any other unusual find;

- observing the Country Code;

- calling the police, and notifying the landowner and tenant, in the unusual (and dangerous) event that live explosives are found.

Find out more

Links

Treasure Act and Code of Practice in England and Wales:

Searching for archaeological objects in Northern Ireland:

Treasure Trove in Scotland:

Council for British Archaeology Factsheet:

About the author

Alex Hunt studied archaeology at Sheffield and Bournemouth Universities. Before joining the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) he worked as a researcher and director for The Archaeological Investigations Project, which was funded by English Heritage, and as a local authority archaeologist with Hertfordshire County Council. As Research and Conservation Officer at the CBA he works to promote a wider understanding of the value and contribution that Britain's rich archaeological inheritance makes today, and lobbies and campaigns to improve its stewardship and care.