Huge Anglo-Saxon gold hoard found

[Melvadius]

This find is absolutely stunning...It definately has left several of the archaeologists working on it lost for words and froma radio report I heard has prompted British Museum staff to leave London and start the find conservation work in Birmingham.

 

The UK's largest haul of Anglo-Saxon gold has been discovered buried beneath a field in Staffordshire.

 

Experts said the collection of 1,500 pieces, which may date back to the 7th Century, is unparalleled in size.

 

A spokeswoman for the British Museum said the find, which is due to be classed as treasure, was the equivalent of finding a "new Book of Kells".

 

Terry Herbert, who found it on farmland using a metal detector, said it "was what metal detectorists dream of".

 

It may take more than a year for the gold, which is expected to be classed by a coroner as treasure later, to be valued.

 

The collection contains about 5kg of gold and 2.5kg of silver, making it far bigger than the Sutton Hoo discovery in 1939 when 1.5kg of Anglo-Saxon gold was found near Woodbridge in Suffolk. .....

 

Continued at:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/8272058.stm

 

Addendum:

 

Several newspapers and websites are starting to report on the find including the Times on-line which ahs a more extensive article than the BBC site and includes 3 good photographs of some of the sword fittings amoungst the find, at:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6847081.ece

 

A digfferent image accompanies the Guardian report:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/24/a...-metal-detector

 

The Telegraph report currently (10:00 am 24/9) seems somewhat abbreviated but is at:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/622...gold-hoard.html

 

[Edit - addendum]

The BBC now have a video on line showing some details of the hoard as part of an interview with a representative of the Portable antiquities scheme at:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8272075.stm

Edited September 24, 2009 by Melvadius

[Crispina]

Wonderful, fascinating. Thanks for posting. I'm reading a book now that takes place in 6th.century Britain, amid the Saxon wars.

 

So, someone just dug a pit in the middle of nowhere and placed all his booty into it? Never came back for it - were they on the run and later died, no one else was aware of it or it's hiding place? It sends the imagination reeling.

[Melvadius]

Glad you liked the images and reports already posted - I was simply lucky to get in early on the reports.

 

I don't normally look at Flickr but have just been told about the following link to 619! images there which show various detailed images of the hoard items both now and at some of the intervening stages of conservation:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/

 

THe Hoard now has its own website at:

 

http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/

 

This seems to be a site to keep an eye on as more items pass through the conservation process.

[JGolomb]

Glad you liked the images and reports already posted - I was simply lucky to get in early on the reports.

 

I don't normally look at Flickr but have just been told about the following link to 619! images there which show various detailed images of the hoard items both now and at some of the intervening stages of conservation:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/

 

THe Hoard now has its own website at:

 

http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/

 

This seems to be a site to keep an eye on as more items pass through the conservation process.

 

Mel - nice pick up. This story is getting a ton of press.

 

I found this interesting little sidebar:

Dispute mars unveiling of golden treasure trove

 

Some highlights:

But the show was marred by a reported dispute between the 55-year-old unemployed man who stumbled upon it, and the farmer in whose field the treasures were found.

 

Farmer Fred Johnson said the discovery had soured his relationship with Terry Herbert, who has been metal detecting for the last 18 years, and was using his trusty 14-year-old detector when he made the life-changing find.

 

"I'm not happy with Terry," he was quoted as saying by The Times newspaper. "I think it is more about the money for him, and I

[Northern Neil]

Hmm, this highlights for me some of the issues which can be thrown up in the whole metal detector / archaeology debate. At the end of the day, few metal detector enthusiasts are interested in structures and context of finds, and personal gain is the bottom line. On the other hand, many of them have made discoveries which would otherwise have lain hidden from us all. I have no doubt that some metal detectorists act with integrity and report/give much of what they find to the archaeological community.

 

However, my mind constantly goes back to the early '70's when my parents were assisting with the excavations at Lancaster Roman fort. A round the clock guard (voluntary) had to be placed on the site to prevent metal detector enthusiasts from plundering the site.

[sylla]

Hmm, this highlights for me some of the issues which can be thrown up in the whole metal detector / archaeology debate. At the end of the day, few metal detector enthusiasts are interested in structures and context of finds, and personal gain is the bottom line. On the other hand, many of them have made discoveries which would otherwise have lain hidden from us all. I have no doubt that some metal detectorists act with integrity and report/give much of what they find to the archaeological community.

 

However, my mind constantly goes back to the early '70's when my parents were assisting with the excavations at Lancaster Roman fort. A round the clock guard (voluntary) had to be placed on the site to prevent metal detector enthusiasts from plundering the site.

Can't agree more with your parents' team.

 

Even if only 1% of the metal detectorists would act without integrity, the damage would be (and presumably is) irreversible.

 

If the potential discoveries remain hidden, that only means that they will be eventually discovered by professional archaeologists in their right context; context is at least half of the relevance of any archaeological finding, and often even more.

 

And of course, virtually anytime an amateur recovers a gold coin or artifact, a bunch of non-precious (for the amateurs) archaeological remains are destroyed or at least contaminated in the process; more or less analogous to the capture of baby gorillas, where the mother and many other adults are killed each time any baby is "recovered".

[Melvadius]

This is another aspect of the debate about who 'owns' historic objects and whether it is 'right' for people to hunt for historic artifacts outside of a properly organised archaeological excavation.

 

There are numerous arguments which can be raised about this but some of the key elements to be considered from 'my' British archaeological viewpoint include:

 

i) Farming is often a destructive process for both historical buildings and artefacts. Every time a farmer ploughs a field or does any form of work such as laying field drains there is a chance that he will go deeper than previously and disturbe or destroy something which has been buried for centuries.

 

ii) Archeologists cannot be everywhere, all of the time, so there will always be items they never see or only hear about after they have been discovered whether by metal detectorists, farmers or simply people walking across a field.

 

iii) There will always be someone who is willing to break the law to get something for free or which they cannot get any other way - eg in metal detecting circles 'night hawks' who will go onto protected archeological sites at night - it is now common for archaeologists to have someone on site the whole time to ward off 'night-time' intruders.

 

iv) Some people, despite regular mentions in the press and on TV do not realise that there are rules about when and where you can use a metal detector (we once found a man trying out his new metal detector with his son within Chesters Roman fort without realising that it was a protected site totally out of bounds to metal detectorists).

 

v) Against the above some metal detectorists are very responsible and regularly work with archaeologists to target excavation 'hot spots' or find metallic material missed during excavation such as occurs with machine stripping of top soil.

 

In the case fo the newly discovered 'Staffordshire Hoard' the farmer had ploughed the field but not yet harrowed it. The archaeologists who excavated the site after the find had been reported believed that harrowing would have pulverised most if not all of of the material that had been raised towards the surface fo the field.

 

Although in an ideal world every discovery of potential significance would be reported to archeologists and a 'properly documentd and controlled excavation take place this is not always possible. Organising a proper excavation can take time and money not least for analysiing and reporting on what has or has not been found. Even if a farmer was willing to delay work on a field if word got out of a major find the find site could easily be trashed by night hawks before archaeological work could commence.

 

Within Britian the Portable Antiquities Scheme has meant that there is a route by which both minor and major finds can be reported and some archaeological and historical information collected from the activities of metal detectorists - by those practicing illegal as well those as using more legal methods - with the farmers permissions and on unlisted sites.

 

I believe that the PAS has also encouraged many of the more responsible detectorists to make attempts to keep accurate records of their finds and bring in archaeologists as soon as they realise that they have made a significant discovery. The finder of the Staffordshire Hoards five days of excavation is unusual in this respect but possibly understandable if he thought that night-hawks were operating in the area adn he couldn't get the PAS man out sooner.

 

I would point out some down sides to the ongoing activities of detectorists:

 

They are ususally hunting or at least targeting metallic objects. By hunting what can be detected with their equipment they must dig down to where the signal is coming from, through potentially important archaeological layers and related materials which are non-metallic.

 

Archeologists use careful plotting of the postion of 'key' archeological material (depednig on period this could be anything from flint or stone objects up to the finest golden necklace) to work out potential relationships between objects. The removal of and potential distrurbance of material by any means can make plotting those relationships difficult or even impossible. This can be a major problem on some sites if there has been a significant quantity of metallic material removed from the site e.g any suggestion that the material was deposited as a 'single event' can be lost forever.

[sylla]

They are ususally hunting or at least targeting metallic objects.

As detectorists by definition use metal detectors, that may be an overstatement.

... By hunting what can be detected with their equipment they must dig down to where the signal is coming from, through potentially important archaeological layers and related materials which are non-metallic.

That obvious risk is presumably the main problem and it seems to be unavoidable as long as amateurs are allowed to dig archaeological sites on their own.

i) Farming is often a destructive process for both historical buildings and artefacts. Every time a farmer ploughs a field or does any form of work such as laying field drains there is a chance that he will go deeper than previously and disturbe or destroy something which has been buried for centuries.

iii) There will always be someone who is willing to break the law to get something for free or which they cannot get any other way - eg in metal detecting circles 'night hawks' who will go onto protected archeological sites at night - it is now common for archaeologists to have someone on site the whole time to ward off 'night-time' intruders.

Although in an ideal world every discovery of potential significance would be reported to archeologists and a 'properly documentd and controlled excavation take place this is not always possible. Organising a proper excavation can take time and money not least for analysiing and reporting on what has or has not been found. Even if a farmer was willing to delay work on a field if word got out of a major find the find site could easily be trashed by night hawks before archaeological work could commence.

Equalizing looting and farming seems a bit out of proportion. Under the same logic, as any farmer in Borneo may be already threatening the survival of the orangutan in some way, it would be only fair to allow the indiscriminate hunting of those primates...

We don't live in a perfect world and there will always be someone willing to break the law; not dealing with any problem just for those obvious facts would be pure negligence.

ii) Archeologists cannot be everywhere, all of the time, so there will always be items they never see or only hear about after they have been discovered whether by metal detectorists, farmers or simply people walking across a field.

v) Against the above some metal detectorists are very responsible and regularly work with archaeologists to target excavation 'hot spots' or find metallic material missed during excavation such as occurs with machine stripping of top soil.

Archeologists use careful plotting of the postion of 'key' archeological material (depednig on period this could be anything from flint or stone objects up to the finest golden necklace) to work out potential relationships between objects. The removal of and potential distrurbance of material by any means can make plotting those relationships difficult or even impossible. This can be a major problem on some sites if there has been a significant quantity of metallic material removed from the site e.g any suggestion that the material was deposited as a 'single event' can be lost forever.

From where I am, a responsible detectorist that carefully plots key archaeological material is regularly called an archaeologist; period.

Archaeology is a professional activity, and there's a reason for that; responsible non-archaeologists shouldn't dig archaeological sites, in the same way that reponsible non-surgeons shouldn't perform major surgery,

Point # v) ("working with archaeologits") seems to me to be the only potentially viable option, aside from absolute forbiddance.

Even if for the sake of the argument we may admit that destroying the non-metallic archaeological remains and context would be the only alternative for new discoveries (as archaeologists are not everywhere), my guess is that experience overwhelmingly shows that it would be better to left them undisturbed until the archaeologists have the right chance to discover and study them.

Edited September 27, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

I cannot speak for the legal position everywhere but within Britain the key points that I was making are that:

 

'Hidden' sites as you termed them often degrade over time and archaeologists often may not find out about them until there is little or nothing left to excavate - there will inevitably be some destruction of archaeological material as an accidental result of 'legitimate' farming or construction activities - e.g. a farmer may plough slightly deepter than previously or a new road cuts through an unidentified site but also metallic items such as iron degrade over time as does bone and natural fibres so if you leave them long enough all that may be left of some sites may simply be a stain in the ground.

 

Metal detecting is banned from a large number of known archaeological sites however there are no legal restictions on the sale or purchase of metal detectors so anyone can buy and use them if they want.

 

The consequence of the above is that what people 'should' or 'shouldn't' do can be argued at length but what archaeologists have to accept and work with whether we like it or not is reality. As far as archaeological material and sites are concerned, we will inevitably mainly be working on sites which have been the location of years if not centuries or millenia of human and non-human activity. Such activities will always have some impact on what can be found during an organised archaeological excavation - metal detectorists whether officially approved or not are only one factor amongst many with potenially adverse impacts whcih can affect any archaeological site - just consider the action of burrowing animals like badgers or rabbits.

 

If the impact of detectorists can be minimised (e.g. through education or by being persuaded to work with archaeologists) then all well and good but there will inevitably be some who no amount of persuasion or legal penalties will disuade from acting in a irresponsible way when it comes to the prospect of finding 'treasure'.

 

In Britiain the portable antiqities scheme has gone a long way to minimising the loss of archaeological material from the historic record, encouraging many detectorists to report finds which otherwsie may have continued to go unreported to archaeologists. The Staffordshire Hoard is a case in point that it was reported and scientifically analysis has been undertaken on it rather than it being dispersed in job lots on ebay or melted down for the gold and silever content which icould very easily have been its alternative fate.

 

To reiterate, it may seem that the easy answer is to ban everyone from owning and/or using a metal detector but even if we did damage or destruction of archeological sites and material will always happen. The archaeologists job is often to try and minimise such damage or if it has occured to try and unpick as much information as possible afterwards. Liaison with metal detectorists has had and continues to have a positive effect towards this aspect of archeology.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Melvadius

[sylla]

Most if not all of us accept that we don't live in a perfect world, which is not the same as doing nothing; as usual, we almost entirely agree.

'Hidden' sites as you termed them often degrade over time and archaeologists often may not find out about them until there is little or nothing left to excavate - there will inevitably be some destruction of archaeological material as an accidental result of 'legitimate' farming or construction activities - e.g. a farmer may plough slightly deepter than previously or a new road cuts through an unidentified site but also metallic items such as iron degrade over time as does bone and natural fibres so if you leave them long enough all that may be left of some sites may simply be a stain in the ground.

I guess not so many metallic artifacts (those actually recovered by the detectorists, like coins) end up as a simple "stain in the ground".

 

Besides, most archaeological material has been hidden (or abandoned, or laid, or the term that you prefer) for centuries or at least decades.

Ecological emergencies aside, in all likelihood in most cases a delay of even a couple of years would not make any notable difference for the decay of such material.

 

I can perfectly understand the potential advantages of amateurs pinpointing previously unknown archaeological sites; the problem is simply that under all the evidence I'm aware of, the described risks clearly exponentially outweigh any potential benefit; additionally, far less risky alternatives to locate such sites are available.

 

Your comparison of the risks of the "legitimate" farming and construction (and of the "illegitimate" varieties too, BTW) on one side and looting on the other is a false dilemma fallacy; even if there is no perfect solution, there are reasonably effective measures available; doing nothing is just not an option.

Besides, it's also a faulty probabilistic assessment, because the odds of archaeological destruction are many times greater for the average looting than for the average farming or construction.

 

A crude analogy; the obvious fact of being all of us mortal has not prevented any nation from forbidding homicide..

Edited September 28, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

Sylla,

 

As you say we 'almost' agree, however I have not 'advocated doing nothing' only pointed out the problems whcih have to be overcome before archaeological 'homicide' or rather more appropriately in this context accidental 'manslaughter' inevitably happens through lack of knowledge rather than inaction.

 

Regarding your main contention that 'far less risky alternatives to locate such sites are available' [for finding archaeological sites]. Yes such methods exist BUT they are not infallible e.g. Britain has an extensive aerial photographic record of both oblique and vertical images dating back to the late 1800's in a few instances but really building up from a base of RAF and Luftwaffe archives which were deposited in the 1940's and comprising private and publically taken images with survey's ongoing. It has its uses in urban areas but very often the older images will show features that are or were originally in rural areas which have already been destroyed through construction, mining or farming activities. Fro instance the photographic sequence has been used in surveys like English Heritages National Mapping Programme to show how earthwork features including ridge and furrow plough marks but also hillforts and villa sites have been extensively damaged since at least the end of the Second World War.

 

Photographic images can be used to identify buried features or monitor the degredation of earthworks but crop marks which are sometimes the best indicators of buried features are notoriously fickle and do not appear in every year or if they do may not be as sharp as aerial observers would like. I have one book showing an earthwork feature in a field which was only visible from one direction and the feature was only spotted after years of overflying on a regular basis.

 

Finds which are isolated from any known building or other archaeological feature, such as the Staffordshire Hoard, will not be identified by such surveys - the find spot would be too insignificant when viewed from any height. Newer aerial techniques such as Light Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) do hold out the hope for finding linear features under tree cover or heavy vegitation but again have their limitations with spot features unlikely to be picked up.

 

Other methods such as field walking after ploughing can be used to pick up concentrations of finds but also has limitiations - you need permission from farmers to go onto their land and if one field cannot be walked for any reason or is under continuous pasture then it is unlikely to appear on any archaeological record.

 

Old maps or historic records may give hints about where a potential archaeological site may lie but there are issues with scale, whether a building being talked about lies in a particular area or in another area with a similar name or a totally different parish because the landowner held land in multiple parishes and didn't record where a particualr building actually lay - there are inumerable instances in Domesday of villages only having 'half a mill' or other significant building.

 

[Edit addendum - electronic methods including GPS, megnetometry and resitivity can also be used but rather than finding totally new sites as these are expensive and labour intensive they are usually only used after as site has already been identified and mainly intended to help target possible excavations or simply to identify how extensive or complex a site actually is.]

 

It comes down to the fact that if a site is unknown then it can be damaged or destroyed before it is identified and even if it is identified often there are only limited resources available to excavate it at best one or two test pits may be attempted but usually the feature is simply recorded with the hope that at some point in the future if it is under risk from future development a trial excavation will be undertaken.

 

On this basis 'accurate' and early reports on find sites by responsible detectorists have become essential in the armoury of archaeologists when trying to identify new arcaheological sites before they are irretrivably damaged.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Melvadius

[sylla]

On this basis 'accurate' and early reports on find sites by responsible detectorists have become essential in the armoury of archaeologists when trying to identify new arcaheological sites before they are irretrivably damaged.

That is an interesting conclusion; is there any statistical evidence that might support it?

How can you define (and identify) the responsible detectorists?

Should the irresponsible detectorists be excluded from this activity?

Edited September 28, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

On this basis 'accurate' and early reports on find sites by responsible detectorists have become essential in the armoury of archaeologists when trying to identify new arcaheological sites before they are irretrivably damaged.

That is an interesting conclusion; is there any statistical evidence that might support it?

How can you define (and identify) the responsible detectorists?

Should the irresponsible detectorists be excluded from this activity?

 

You ask for statistics which by their very nature are impossible to quantify except by inference look at any of the National Mapping Programme reports and you will see from the plans sites which are only know from historic records - the details of which mainly come old aerial photographs. Background on the NMP and some extracts of reports can be found at: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/...001002003004003

 

Examples of sites discovered through the activities of metal detectroists are included in case studies on the Portable Antiquities site at http://www.finds.org.uk/case_studies/

 

You ask for a definition of a responsible metal detectorist in Britian that would include anyone who obeys the law seeks relevant permission before detecting anywhere and reports their finds through the PAS.

 

Should irresponsible detectorists be excluded from this activity - of course but my question to you is precisely how do you think they can effectively be banned from doing something they know is against the law when they usually operate in isolated and/or rural areas at night?

[sylla]

Thanks for your patient answers, Mel.

Your posted links are wonderful; the British heritage protection in particular is something I was looking for.

... a responsible metal detectorist in Britian that would include anyone who obeys the law seeks relevant permission before detecting anywhere and reports their finds through the PAS.

At the end of the day, this seems to be the quid of this issue.

The main fact is of course that the system seems to be working fine.