Gone Medieval - Medieval Treasure: What To Do If You Find Some

Episode Date: November 23, 2021

If you're lucky enough to find some 'treasure', you're legally obliged to report it. A coroner then decides whether it's actually treasure. Yes, there's a legal definition of treasure, and you can't just pocket it, even if you've found it. This goes for all the amazing finds, mostly from metal detectorists over the years, including the Crusader's Sword, the Galloway Hoard, and the Ringlemere Cup. Though not everyone plays by the rules, and there have been plenty of scandals in cases like the Herefordshire Hoard, where pieces were stolen and sold to dealers. In this episode of Gone Medieval, Dr Cat Jarman is joined by Professor Michael Lewis, Head of Portable Antiquities & Treasure at The British Museum to define what treasure is, what happens if you've found some and more about the Portable Antiquities Scheme, which gets involved when a piece might not be legally considered treasure, but still holds some cultural or historic value Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life, only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries

with a brand-new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world, to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Hello, I'm Dr. Kat Jarman and welcome to today's episode of Gone Medieval from History Hit. It seems like every week or so there's a report in the news about some great new discovery, often made by metal detectors, things like coin hordes, stunning and usual golden silver object. And we've covered a few of those here on Gone Medieval if you go back over our episodes, And one thing that these discoveries often have in common is that they fall under the classification of treasure.

Not in the sort of pirate treasure map sort of way, but in the legal definition, meaning that these objects belong to the crown. If you've been following some of these stories in the news, you might have noticed that a lot of them date to the medieval period. And some of them have had a really significant impact on our understanding of it. But the very idea of treasure and these news articles about shiny digital. discoveries can be problematic and even controversial. You may have noticed that some of them have led to arrests, court cases and even long prison sentences. And what about all those other things, the objects that are not technically treasure, but that can teach us far more about the past than something shiny? In today's episode, I'm going to be digging a little deeper into all of this,

both to find out about some of those discoveries and how the treasure process works. But I also wanted to hear more about something called the Portable Antiquities Scheme and how that has dramatically changed how these individual lost objects, even the small, ugly and unloved ones, can inform us about the medieval period. So to do that, I've come to the British Museum. So I've now come down to the British Museum and I'm out in the back in one of the wings actually up near the roof, just sort of Tucketin and I've come here to meet Professor Michael Lewis who is the Head of Portable Antiquities and of Treasure here at the British Museum so thank you so much for joining gone with you all today Michael no problem good to see you now I just have to say that that title head of treasure that's

quite a good title isn't it yeah people always say that they say ah love the idea that you're head of treasure but what about the Portable Antiquities bit yeah so treasure it sounds good doesn't it It really does. And I wanted to just start with that. So we want to get into some of the, the sort of less known objects and things that you work with as well in a moment. But just sort of start a little bit. What's the history behind this idea of treasure and the idea that certain things are classified as treasure and others are not? Where does all of that come from? Well, really, the treasure legislation has medieval origins, essentially. And it was when the crown, essentially, the king, I suppose, wanted to be able to claim any gold or silver principally

that no one else had any sort of claim on. So these laws for a long time were common laws, so based on the principle of what people did rather than written down in any sort of way. And it was really just the way that the medieval monarch could claim this money for their own coffers. Over time, of course, people realised that these objects from the past that were discovered by chance,

and these gold and silver objects, did have an archaeological interest. And so they thought, well, maybe it's not the best idea, just to melt this down, but this metal to go into the royal vaults. But instead, maybe they should end up in museum collections. So over time, the legislation has evolved significantly from the idea that it's just about bullion to something that's more kind of instrumental

to our understanding of the past. And I think that's what we're sort of moving towards now, certainly. Not quite done, but we're certainly into the realms where the treasure law is to protect archaeological finds. So what is then the definition of treasure? what in your rule, but what ends up on your desk essentially as treasure? I think one thing to be kind of probably to be clear about at the beginning is that the treasure legislation or treasure laws vary actually in different parts of the United Kingdom,

even in Europe, of course. And in England, which I'll principally talk about in Wales, we have the same legislation, which basically means that these objects are essentially gold and silver, fines, they've got to be over 300 years old, or hordes of coins. it gets a bit complicated, but in the case of coin hordes, if they're precious metal, there's got to be two or more of them in the same place. And if they're base metal, then there's got to be 10 or more of them. But there's also other things that get added to the definition of treasure over time. So, for example, in 2003, there was a designation order that added prehistoric base metal

assemblages to the definition of treasure. So you could argue it's something that's kind of growing over time what the definition is. But at the moment, it's mostly to do with gold and silver objects of some age. So if somebody then finds something that falls in that category, what happens to it? What do they have to do? And where does it end up in the end? Yeah, well, it's quite a complicated process. But the starting point is that if someone finds treasure, they have a legal obligation to report it.

And the person they report it to, which might come as a bit of a surprise, is the local coroner in the district in which it was found. So essentially they're dealing with death inquests and occasional treasure fines as well. So some coroners describe it as a bit like relief really to their everyday job. And others, I feel they probably find it a bit of an unnecessary burden. But essentially, the legislation allows for the opportunity of museums to acquire these fines. And if a museum is interested in acquiring an object that is potential treasure, then a coroner will hold a verdict to decide whether that's the case. obviously they make that judgment based on reports that are written by local archaeologists

or archaeologists based on one of the national museums or other experts. And then that object is essentially, if a museum wants to acquire it, is valued. So there's a money aspect that comes into this, which obviously some archaeologists are not so excited about, which provides the basis of a reward payable to the finder and the landowner, which enables essentially the object to enter into a museum collection. So it's quite a convoluted process and it involves quite a lot of people and it can take quite a lot of time actually. I mean, the legislation says it should happen within a year. But often these cases trund along longer than that depending how complex they are.

And as you can appreciate, some of these finds are really impressive archaeological finds. You know, things that come to mind are like the Staffordshire Horde, the Frum Horde of Roman coins as well. Many, many medieval ones, of course, as well. but also smaller objects are quite common, sometimes very fragmentary, that just because they're gold or silver and over 300 years old, they have to enter this process. So I suppose what I'm saying is that there's a real need for this act in order to ensure that some of the most important finds are captured

and end up in museum collections. But there's also a lot of paperwork that happens for lesser objects that in some ways you wish didn't need to go through the process in quite the same rigour. Yes, I can imagine. And I mean, are we talking about really huge quantities or huge numbers of objects, or is it sort of 10 a year, or is it thousands, sort of roughly how many things? Well, when the legislation first became law in 1997, so we used to have this old law that I kind of previously described of Treasure Trove, and it was revised in 1996 and became law in 1997. Then we were talking about a handful of cases of the old legislation. Now we're talking in

excess of 1,300 or so cases a year. So that's quite a significant jump from what we had at the beginning. Indeed, at that time, there wasn't really an expectation. It would be more than a few hundred cases every year. But it's just gone up and up and up. You know, there's lots of reasons to sort of explain that. One you'd hope is that people are more aware of the legislation, probably the fact that more people are undertaking metal detecting, perhaps. There's lots of different reasons, probably. But yeah, it's becoming quite a significant number. But one thing the government is looking at the moment, which I think is, you know, important thing to do from an archaeological perspective, is not look at these objects purely in terms of their metallic composition, but also consider their significance.

And they like the idea of having a more significance-based approach to dealing with treasure. So how do we capture those objects that might not be precious metal, but are more significant? Yeah, so I'm hoping soon that there will be some tweaks to the legislation at least that allow for that to happen. Yeah, so, I mean, coming at it from the perspective on archaeologist, this sort of emphasis on treasure and gold and silver and value and money, which is kind of quite often, unfortunately, what comes across in media, it's the, you know, so-and-so many hundred thousand pounds or whatever that is the value of the objects. I mean, that's, in a way, a bit problematic, isn't it, that focus on treasure? Is that something that you also see as a problem? Yes, I think so,

because obviously, as an archaeologist, we're interested in what these objects can tell us about the past and you know when you get media reports that concentrate on the financial value of these objects that kind of detracts from that in many ways you can have a wonderful story sometimes that talks about how the finder you know did the right thing and they were so excited about their discovery and it's this discovery that kind of sheds new light on this aspect of i don't know the medieval period or whatever it is and then you know it's worth 50,000 pounds it's like oh gosh i know like for the antiques radio show probably i shouldn't name check but for certain shows, it's what it's about, you know, that kind of reveal, if you like, at the end.

But I think for us as archaeologists, that's almost a bit of a depressive point to kind of, you know, talk about the kind of monetary aspect of these finds. I think the reality is, of course, in some countries, you know, not very far away from us, most of these objects would be owned by the state, and the state would just claim them, and there would be no sort of discussion about this. And sometimes that's something that's a bit hard to get across to find us, in terms of treasure. They're the finder of it, yes, but it's not finders keepers. They're actually finding an object that belongs to the crown. And at the end of the day, it's down to the crown whether they decide they want to retain interest in this object or not. And that's obviously

quite difficult thing to get across from a practical perspective. But of course, you know, we're in a country where the law essentially says in most cases, you know, outside the treasure legislation, it's the landowner that has the primary interest in objects made on their land, which like I said, is very different in other countries. And from that basis, you know, there has to be some sort of compensation. And would it be right for the landowner to get all of the compensation or the finder as well? So although a monetary value is ascribed to these objects and they are valued on the basis of what they would sell essentially on the marketplace, that is presented to the finders as a reward for making the discovery and doing the right thing. And when the legislation was first

thought about, it was seen as an important way to encourage people to do the right thing. It's interesting in a way, though, isn't it, that we kind of think that you might get, I don't know, paid extra money if you drive your car properly or you get paid extra money if you, I don't know, don't stab someone or whatever. You know, it's kind of a strange idea that you get paid for following the legislation. But yeah, as an archaeologist, of course, it's a problem when particularly certain fines that are obviously quite interesting and important aren't acquired by local museums for the same reasons that they can't raise the money to acquire these objects. And that happens as well. So,

like I say, the treasure legislation is designed to ensure that these objects enter into museum collections. But if that's not happening, because museums cannot raise the money to acquire these objects, then it's not really fulfilling the purpose of what it was set up to do. So I think that's something we always have to bear in mind is, one, is this an object that needs to be in a museum collection? And obviously, a lot of archaeologists would say every archaeological or fine should be in a museum collection, which I think is impossible. actually. But anyway, if that was the case, we would we have space for all of these vines? But the second thing, of course, is that if it is really important, then it really should be in a museum.

And I think that's something we try and get across to the finders who are principally metal detectors that, you know, museums are acquiring these objects, not for their own personal collections, but just so these objects can be shared with the widest possible public as well. And that's obviously really important for us as archaeologists to articulate the importance of these finds and how they help us understand the past. Yeah, and we've got some really good examples. I think we can talk about a few things in the moment, but moving away from the treasure and actually the other part of your job title,

and actually the antiquities part of that portable antiquities. So you're also in charge of this thing called the portable antiquities scheme, which is actually something that really addresses this to some degree, all those other objects that are not classified as treasure. Can you just tell the listeners who might know have come across it before, unless they've sort of, well, some of the other episodes, I've talked about it at quite a long. But what is the Portable Antiquities scheme? And what was that set up to do? Yeah, we'd come out with a very snappy name in Portable Antiquities, didn't we?

It's kind of funny, really. It came out of the fact that when the government was deciding on the legislation over treasure, there was a discussion, really, and there was a discussion document, even published called Portable Antipodes, a discussion by then, you know, the forebearer of the kind of Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which we sort of come under. And it was looking at the extent to which objects that are not treasure get reported on or we gather knowledge about them as well. So the idea essentially was that archaeologists were fairly comfortable with the idea of treasure legislation to capture the most important objects and ensure they come into museum collections, but felt that there was no mechanism whatsoever to collect information on all of the other

sorts of archaeological finds that had been discovered, essentially by a metal detectorist, but others as well. So there might be people outfield walking, there might be people who find things in their gardens. And I guess in the past what would happen is that if people felt it appropriate, they would take these objects to their local museum and they might get an identification for them.

But even so, even in those cases, it was quite rare that this information was being gathered. And as archaeologists, of course, we know that although these objects are different from those found in archaeological excavations, they're not found within a discrete or precise archaeologist, context, most of them are in the plough soil, so removed, if you like, from that precise archaeological context, they still provide clues about what's going on below ground and in those

places more generally, and also the relationship between different object types. So I think there was a clear recognition from government and archaeologists that we can't just let this information go out into the ether. There needs to be a system for collecting it. So in 1997, besides the treasure legislation, they also set up pilot schemes for recording archaeological finds. And in 2003, that was extended to the whole of England and Wales. And now we have 40 fines liaison officers, 40 archaeologists across the country based within local organisations whose job it is to liaise with the public and record those objects. And all of those fines are added on to a central database, the Ports of Antiquity Scheme database,

where that information can be used by anyone. Anyone can look at what's been discovered in their local area. They'll get an image, a description, dimensions, and the all-important fine spot information, which is restricted online, but is made absolutely available to people who are researching this information. And the idea, of course, is that it can be used for any archaeological research, whether that's someone doing a local study of a site or a landscape

to local authority to decide whether archaeological intervention is needed before kind of planning permissions given, for example, if they're building a new road or something like that, to researchers interested in particular periods of history, like the medieval period that we're interested in. So, you know, the idea is to really make use of that information, recognising that it isn't, well, it is a tapped resource nowadays, but at the time it was an untapped resource. And it actually, I mean, I can't really state this enough, I think. It's actually had a huge impact on quite a lot of different periods. And certainly early in medieval archaeology, Viking Age archaeology, it's actually just transformed what we know. And so many

example things like female jewelry, the knowledge we now have based on those artefacts of, you know, women in the Viking Age and Viking Great Armies, the work that I've done looking at just ugly little bits of lead, these little gaming pieces that essentially just track the Vikings around the country. It's actually had quite a staggering impact, hasn't it? Yes, I think so. And I think it's, I'd say it's almost impossible nowadays to do landscape archaeological studies without kind of thinking about portable antiquities data. I think the way to think about that, I suppose, is to look at how archaeology happens in this country.

And there's really two main routes. One is development-led archaeology, so that's by commercial archaeological units, that are kind of following these new developments. So it's kind of reactive, really. to damage of the archaeological record through development. And then there's essentially metal detecting. So members of the public going out there in a completely different way of searching. They're obviously, you know, they're not knowing they're going to find anything at all.

It's completely by chance. And of course, they're mostly going into quite rural areas to do this activity. So there's two data sets that are quite different in terms of how they're collated, also how those finds are made. and also what information they sort of recover about these objects as well. And whilst there is problems with looking with both the mechanisms for search and you could argue and recovery, there are kind of relationships between them that are important to explore, and they do kind of provide clues to the other. So for example, taking a small class of Viking Age Stroke Anglo-Saxon artifact type,

these stirrup strap mounts, so these are these decorative fittings with a practical function that are added to the stirrup straps of late ANROWs. Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age sort of horse gear. From archaeological excavations, there's only a few of these that have been discovered, but through metal detecting, there's many, many hundreds of them. In fact, they're quite a common object. So if you sort of ignore that metal-detected data, then you really don't have any understanding of these objects whatsoever

from what was found through archaeology. So they're completely complementary things. And like, of course, the work you've been doing as well and you're interested in in terms of Viking settlement. I mean, some of these places, you cannot see through traditional archaeological, you know, activity research works. They're not visible almost, they're invisible.

And it's only through the objects that are found and the fact that they are found in numbers or scattered through the landscape or there's particular types of them in particular areas, then you start to kind of get an understanding that actually something's going on here, that then maybe archaeology can be used to kind of later understand in terms of the landscapes that they sit in.

Yes, I suppose that's a long way of saying that. I think this data is so important for the study of archaeology. And I think in some ways, you know, there are countries, of course, that, you know, don't benefit from this information. And you kind of wonder what stories there could be told if they're able to explore it in another way. Hello, if you're enjoying this podcast, then I know you're going to be fascinated by the new episodes

of the history hit warfare podcast, from the polionic battles and Cold War confrontations to the Normandy landings and 9-11, we reveal new perspectives on how war has shaped and changed our modern world. I'm your host, James Rogers, and each week, twice a week, I team up with fellow historians, military veterans, journalists, and experts from around the world to bring you inspiring leaders. If the crossroads had fallen, then what Napoleon would have achieved

is he would have severed the communications between the Allied force and the Prussian force, and there wouldn't have been a Waterloo. It would have been as simple as that. Revolutionary technologies. At the time the weapons were tested, there was this perception of great risk and great fear during the arms race that meant that these countries disregarded these communities,

health and well-being to pursue nuclear weapons instead. And war-defining strategies. It's as though the world is incapable of finding a moderate light presence. It always wants to either swamp the place in trillion-dollar wars or it wants to have nothing at all to do with it. And in relation to a country like Afghanistan, both approaches are catastrophic. Join us on the history hit warfare podcast,

where we're on the front line of military history. In your job, you don't just sit there and do the paperwork, and I hope, for you all saying. I do mostly, but yeah. But, you know, you do also get to actually look at this in a bit more detail than you've worked on some other projects. So if we're looking at the sort of medieval period specifically, what sort of projects have you worked on with this

and what sort of information? Yes, I've got a particular interest in the kind of high medieval period. I mean, like you say, a lot of people that have been using Portable Antiquities data have been looking at the early medieval period. There was a fantastic project that was done in the early days of the Portable Antiquities scheme called the Vassal Viking Age landscape project in York, led by Julian Richards, which was trying to explore the kind of hinterland, if you like, that served the Viking capital of York.

For myself, there's two kind of angles I've taken, really. what is looking objects or object types in sort of isolation? So I've been quite interested in objects associated with medieval religion and particularly their kind of reuse and later reuse. So I've been looking at things like papal buller, which were the lead seals that are attached to church documents that somehow find themselves in the soil. And some of them show evidence of damage.

There's these objects as well made in France, a place called Le Mouge that seem to end up in the plows over as well. that again, perhaps were broken up at the time of the Reformation. So medieval objects then have a secondary sort of life and become destroyed and then come into the plough zone. And these objects sometimes are associated or found quite close to churches, as you might expect. So again, in that sort of work, it's looking at the kind of relationship between these objects to each other and the places that they're found. More recently, I suppose, I've been doing a project with a colleague of mine, Elias Oxanonan, who's Finnish, where we've been looking at the relationship between medieval objects that have been found

through the Possible Antiquity Scheme and market sites. So in the medieval period, markets were mostly chartered, so they're documented that they existed, but where they existed is not always clear. But through Portable Antiquity Scheme data, you can sometimes see where these market sites were and how they shifted over time. So some of them, of course, were established for very commercial reasons and others were established for political reasons. And obviously, if a market site's established for political reasons, like a lord wants one on his land and gets a royal charter for it to happen or his town, he wants it for the status, but it might not actually have any viability from a commercial sense. So sometimes you see this drift between markets that are successful and those that aren't.

So again, you can't see that through normal traditional archaeological excavation. You can only see it through these chance finds. But in one place, this is just a single medieval coin or it can't be a weighing balance or any sort of object, I suppose, associated with the medieval past. But together they start to kind of group and show patterns and you can divide them into different subsections and such like that allow you to compare and contrast them. So we've done some quite interesting stuff there with the data that we're. hold on the Portable Antiquity Scheme database. And another project that we're working on now is actually looking to see how material culture changes in the medieval period through time based on or in relation to significant historic events. So a good example is the Black Death of the

mid-14th century where everybody knows that the population levels decreased significantly, but what impact did that have on the material culture that were people were using at the time? So was it the case? that people then, as we're told, have more money and then invest it more in the material culture. Are there signals in that? I won't tell you the answers because we're still getting to the end of it. But it is kind of fascinating that you can see something of these broad trends within these objects that are being discovered. And again, you know, people have observed that, I suppose, to some extent, in urban centres like London and Winchester and York. but looking at it in a, you know, a wider level across the country is quite interesting actually

because what happens in these cities might not be representative of what happens across the whole country. Yeah, so we're getting actually quite a lot more of that rural environment, I suppose, as well then. And I suppose a lot of the detecting is happening in these rural areas and they're happening where fields are being plowed. And so suddenly you get that data out of quite a different part of society, I suppose. Yeah, and I think that's what's really interesting, isn't it? is just are these people living in the countryside very different in terms of the way they lived and their material culture than those living in urban sites? And we're obviously often told,

oh yes, these people living in urban sites were much more, you know, trendy or they had more wealth, all of that sort of stuff. But I think what you see within Ports of Antiquities, material culture for the medieval period anyway, is a wider dispersal of this. So there's quite a variety of objects that people are using and you know as you would expect there's more of a concentration in these urban areas but nonetheless it seems that there's a lot of people that do have access to this material culture and of course what we're seeing is not what is owned by just the highest echelons of society but the people kind of further down now i'm not saying we're going right down to the bottom of society where the people have absolutely hardly anything i mean obviously

most of what comes up through the Ports by Antiquity Scheme is metal objects. But still, you know, some of these items, although they're made of metal, they are kind of crafted quite simply and quite easily as well. So yeah, I think they give a more representative version, actually, of what people were like in the past. Obviously, we'll never get to know them as individuals, but we get a signal of them from what they've left behind. And it's also what I think is quite interesting about it is there tend to be a lot of the

accidental losses and things that people aren't necessarily deletious. liberately getting rid of, whereas if you're looking at graves, for example, and burials, then the objects are somebody is, you know, if you're looking at a period where grave goods are included, they're very specific and they're chosen and, you know, they're put in there for a reason. But if you're looking at just things that people have lost accidentally, then that's actually quite a different thing, isn't it, that you're finding out about? Yeah, definitely. And we had a small project, I used to be fines, the Aes and Officer in Kent, so the archaeologist recording the finds in Kent,

and we had a small project, which we call the Kent Anglo-Saxon broach project, where we're looking very much at that, the kind of difference between the broaches that were found within inhumations and those that were found through detecting. And you see kind of different sorts of objects being used. So like you say, people wanting to present themselves, or not necessarily them, but their family members

or members of their community, wanting to present a certain thing through what they're buried with, And then what they wear and use from a practical basis might be quite different sometimes. Obviously, for the medieval period proper, we don't have the benefit in this country anyway of much material culture being buried with inhumation. So we're quite reliant on what is actually found in these urban areas and through metal detecting actually. And we're presuming that people aren't really buried with much at all. It seems to be the case anyway.

And so therefore we don't have that sort of those differences maybe. but I know in some other countries, you know, there are, even in the Christian period, there's quite a long tradition of burying people with certain objects. And again, are those objects communicating what the deceased wanted to say, what the families around them, or even the community at large? So, yeah, the relationship between objects and people is fascinating. And I don't think many of us nowadays, when we're kind of wearing things, maybe fully appreciate how we might be interpreted by archaeologists in the future who might dig us up and say, oh, they were definitely this and they were. definitely that because they were buried with this. Yeah, it's a bit worrying sometimes, isn't it? The way we interpret these people in the past, if they were going to do the same about us, it would be a... We had this great portable antiquities, I don't know what you'd call it,

activity for schools, where we would go through the bin of the teacher, so we'd go to a classroom and we'd get the teacher's bin at, and then you'd be able to say a few things about a teacher. Quite embarrassing, really. It's like, oh, teacher you've been eating all of these chocolate biscuits at lunchtime. What can we say about you based on what you've been thrown away in your bin? And I think if one of us looked at home in our bins and took out some objects and thought, right, okay, this is what we're going to, this is how we're going to interpret you. We might be quite scared. We might be quite careful what we put in our bins or leave behind for other people to find.

Yeah, absolutely. But I think that really properly demonstrates the idea of what you would put in a grave, it's not the same last spot you would put in your bin. There's a different thing you're trying to represent. And I think to me that's really what the Portable Antiquity Scheme has done so well. It's just really sort of shift that focus of so many different periods. And as I said earlier, you know, for the Vikings especially, just completely transformed it. So I think, you know, as archaeologists, we are quite grateful for all that hard work that you are all during.

I mean, is it sort of properly funded going forward? Is it a scheme that's going to continue or are there any threats to it at the moment? Yeah, well, I'd very much hope to say that the scheme is here to stay. I mean, obviously the funding for the scheme is principally through the grant in aid that the British Museum gets through government. and also there's contributions from the local partners. So it's quite a complicated structure that we have, actually, in terms of the British Museum runs it in England and all of the fine liaison officers are employed locally.

So there's a kind of a shared risk, if you like, but at the same time it's a very much a collaborative approach to deliver in the scheme. So when you have that approach, there's always a risk that one bit kind of falters and you have to think about ways that that is shored up, really. I think the reality is that there's obviously, it seems to be the case anyway that there's more people taking up the hobby of metal detecting.

And that obviously does have a resource impact because we do at the moment have to make decisions about what sorts of objects we're going to record and what we're not going to record. We try to be as systematically as we can up to about the end of the medieval period. And then after that, a bit more selective depending on how we think these objects help understand the past. But of course, that's from our modern perspective of what's important and not rather than what archaeologists in the future. They might say, why didn't they do this and why didn't they do that? I suppose what I'm saying is that more resources would be very welcome. Thank very much for anybody who's happy to give us a few quid.

That would be great. But I think the reality is that if we are going to capture all of this information and share it as widely as possible, then it is quite a big job to keep doing that. So we talked about the treasure numbers, which is, you know, at the moment, about, you know, 1,200, 100 cases a year. in terms of Ports for Antiquities, we're recording in a given year between 50 and 80,000 objects. So it's a lot more than people have to report on a mandatory basis. But again, that shows some sort of credit and some sort of achievement, not only to the Portsbal Antiquities scheme, but also the members of the public who have recorded their fines, particularly the detecting community. Because I know in the past they've been sort of slayed a little bit by archaeologists,

but most people, I think, are wanting to contribute this. And, you know, they're quite happy to record their fines. And that's obviously really important for us because they are the only people who know when a find has been made and where it's found. And if that information is not shared as soon after as possible, that discovery is made, then it's quite easy that that would get lost. And we all know the find spot is the most important thing. I mean, the objects are beautiful or interesting as art historical pieces. But without the fine spot, they're pretty useless, aren't they really? So, you know, for us interpreting them, we just, we need that fine spot information.

Absolutely. And you did mention earlier on that the database that people can look at, and I just, as I was sort of winding up, I just wanted to mention that. People say it's finds.org.uk. That's right. And people can go and you can search for object types and rough location. So you can get a sort of rough area, can you. Yeah. So on the database, people can search for a four-figure grid reference, which is essentially a one kilometre square. So that's, for most people, that's enough to give the general impression where these objects are discovered. Like I said, I mean, researchers can, you know, apply for full access, which gives them precise information. So anyone can search on there and look for those objects and see images of them and look for different places and sites, but also different object types that they're interested in. So, yeah, it's kind of freely available for that. And also, if people want to use images in, you know, for their own purposes or publications,

they're very welcome to do that. We want to share that information as widely as possible as well. And it's an absolutely fantastic website and resource And I would highly recommend everyone As soon as you finish listening to this Go online and have a look And you can easily waste half a day or two Not waste it

No way, sorry, no Happily spend and while away and learn Yes, no but it is a really brilliant resource And it's made such a big difference So I think that leads us to the end of this today Thank you so much Michael for sharing all of that with us No problem, thanks for coming And yeah, everybody have another look at that website

if you can. And also, you can listen back to some of our previous episodes. Certainly one of our very first was on Vikings in Northumbria, and that was a brand new Viking site that was discovered through the objects logged on the PAS. So brand new sites are coming up all the time, and it's actually really exciting. So have a listen to that as well. And that was the end of this episode of Gone Medieval by History Hit. I'm Dr. Kat Jarman. I was joined today by Professor Michael Lewis from the British Museum. and I hope to have you join us again next week.