Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T03:24:03.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

People's finds: context and control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

N. James
N. James*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What should professional archaeologists do about objects discovered by amateurs? The best known cases involve metal-detectorists who, under the English 'Treasure Act (1996), are permitted to make agreements with land-owners to search for antiquities and keep them, although the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS; set up to complement the Act's provisions) encourages them to have their finds registered by an archaeologist. There is no doubt that this has greatly increased knowledge of artefacts discovered in England where, in the past decade, the annual number of 'portable antiquities formally reported has risen steeply (Bland 2008: 71). The British Museum is now promoting a code of practice (Bland 2008: 81–2); and, at pains to avoid counterposing professional archaeologists and amateurs, it is encouraging the opportunities for outreach and 'community archaeology' (British Museum n.d.: 16–18). Thus Bland (2008: 80) welcomes collective knowledge . . . founded on public . . . participation' rather than . . . research . . . conceived and executed by professionals'. Yet there are now fresh anxieties about preservation at detectorists' sites (Pestell & Ulmschneider 2003: 9–10; Wilson 2009; Plouviez 2010).

Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 85 , Issue 329 , September 2011 , pp. 1068 - 1072
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blackburn, M. A. S. & Bonser, M. J. 1987. Single finds of Anglo-Saxon and Norman coins -3. British Numismatic Journal 56: 64–101.Google Scholar
Bland, R. 2008. The development and future of the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, in Thomas, S. & Stone, P. (ed.) Metal detecting and archaeology: 63–84. Woodbridge: Boydell.Google Scholar
British Museum. n. d. [2011]. Portable Antiquities and Treasure: annual report 2008. n. p.: BritishMuseum.Google Scholar
Carver, M. 2011. The best we can do? Antiquity 85: 230-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, M. & Faulkner, N. 2005. The Sedgeford hoard. Stroud: Tempus.Google Scholar
Faulkner, N. 2000. Archaeology from below. Public Archaeology 1: 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. 1722. Britannia … by William Camden. London: Awnsham Churchill.Google Scholar
Kennedy, M. 2009. A beep, and Mr Lucky opened the door on a lost world. The Guardian 25 September: 6–7.Google Scholar
Leahy, K., Hooke, D., Jones, A. & Okasha, E. 2011. The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) Hoard: recovery of a treasure. Antiquity 85: 202–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pestell, T. & Ulmschneider, K. 2003. Introduction: early medieval markets and 'productive' sites, in Pestell, T. & Ulmschneider, K. (ed.) Markets in early medieval Europe: trading and 'productive sites', 650-850: 1–10. Macclesfield: Windgather.Google Scholar
Plouviez, J. 2010. Metal detecting and 10 years of the PAS: some personal thoughts. Rescue News 109: 3.Google Scholar
Stead, I. M. 1991. The Snettisham Treasure: excavations in 1990. Antiquity 65: 447-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmschneider, K. 2000. Settlement, economy, and the ‘productive site’: Middle Saxon Lincolnshire AD 650-870. Medieval Archaeology 44: 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P. 2009. The nighthawking report. British Archaeology May/June: 42-5.Google Scholar