In 2009, a group of four gold torcs dating from the Iron Age was discovered near Stirling by a metal-detectorist, reportedly on his first ever outing, and was purchased by the state under Treasure Trove laws (in Scotland the Treasure Act does not apply). A payment of £462,000, raised from public grants and donations, was made for the finds, which are now housed in the National Museum of Scotland. The finder – David Booth – reported the finds shortly after digging them up – actions that were praised by authorities as ‘exemplary’. This prompted an archaeological excavation of the site, which was found to consist of a timber roundhouse. Finds analysis established that two of the torcs have a local style/provenance, while the other two have a Continental and Mediterranean origin.
Though the ‘Stirling torcs’ are remarkable, this story is not unusual in Britain today. It is perhaps what advocates of ‘responsible metal detecting’ would consider a best-case scenario: metal detectorist goes into field and digs up valuable artefacts, reports artefacts promptly to authorities, artefacts go on to the market for sale, decision is made over whether to use public funds to purchase artefacts and/or investigate the findspot. Like it or not, this is how much public money is being spent on archaeology/heritage today.
But though finders who swiftly report major discoveries are described as ‘responsible … exemplary’, is this responsible and exemplary archaeology? David Booth acted in good faith and did the right thing – his actions were lauded by the authorities and he is now depicted on a display panel in the museum. The authorities did the only right thing possible – bought the finds and excavated the site; new information was obtained from a previously unknown and significant site – good result – but where is all this heading?
Clearly treasure hunting, artefact collecting, metal detecting, call it what you will, is a key motivator for archaeological field investigation inBritain. In terms of expenditure, buying finds and conducting salvage digs must rank only behind building development as a public cost for ‘archaeology’. But who does it benefit? How is it that an archaeologist can invest years of effort into formulating research proposals and grant applications to fund projects when expensive purchases and rescue excavations are triggered by chance discoveries of ‘precious’ finds? The research project will bring employment, education and enjoyment to many, while the shiny stuff concentrates money and cultural capital into the hands of the few.
Before I get accused of sour grapes or have tedious arguments rehearsed about ‘we wouldn’t know about it if it weren’t for detectorists’, I should say that I think antiquarianism – the documenting and collecting of things from the past for their own sake – is not archaeology. It might be nice to look at shiny gold stuff, but it does not necessarily tell us more about the past than, say, a bit of burnt wood or a bone. The antiquarian turn in public heritage policy comes after the almost complete privatisation of archaeology and its subordination to the development industry. Shiny stuff is able to command political capital, and recent governments in the UK have exploited this, just as their imperialist predecessors in the Victorian period did.
Archaeologists aren’t entirely blameless for their status as ‘bottom feeders’ (as John Moreland called the discipline, admittedly in a different context). Why is there not more pressure to rebalance spending towards investigation of important questions about the past rather than buying shiny stuff and running around after holes dug by looters, er, I mean detectorists? Why is Colin Renfrew vociferous to condemn the illicit antiquities market but is comfortable with ‘responsible’ detecting? Perhaps there is just too much invested by the establishment in the shiny stuff. It’s safe, it makes for happy stories, it allows for superlatives – the biggest, most significant, most valuable, goldest … It doesn’t demand the difficult questions and uncomfortable answers that archaeology provides.
