sign in sign up
<<
Home , Black Ven, Lyme Regis Museum

Review of the West collecting code

Appendix 9. Issues and recommendations already identified by the review

1 Low acquisition rates of Key Scientifically Important specimens

Without doubt, increasing the number of specimens acquired by accredited museums is the greatest challenge for the code. The chronic lack of funding for palaeontology nationally, the lack of appropriately controlled storage and display space in museums, particularly locally, the challenges of securing acquisition funding and different attitudes to the purchase of palaeontological specimens, are the underlying barriers to acquisition. Clearly the purpose of acquiring category 1 specimens is that the rules of zoological nomenclature strongly recommend that specimens should only be described in the scientific literature if they are secured within an accredited museum collection in order for future study and assessment to be guaranteed.

A number of specimens are being held back by collectors in expectation that a world class museum or exhibition will be built on or near the coast but very little has been done to determine if this is a viable proposition or not. The Museum wishes to expand but it needs to find the funding, occupies a constrained site and must convince the collectors that this is the best option. It is essential that this issue is addressed one way or the other.

RECOMMENDATION 1 : Explore the opportunity for a major new exhibition or museum. Can existing local museums fulfil the role? The is seeking to expand and provide a larger gallery dedicated to the . Some collectors wish to see a purpose-built centre or museum but no one is taking a lead on this option. The work must explore both possibilities and make some form of recommendation.

The significance of some specimens has been missed and no action has been taken even when specimens are available for donation. Record 133 is a very good example, an extraordinarily well preserved leaf from the Upper Greensand, identified as category 1, available for donation, yet nothing has been done to further assess the significance of the specimen or approach the collector. The obvious thing to do is to ensure that the specimen is highlighted to the relevant expert or experts at the time it is recorded. If that specimen is of very real interest, then a statement to that effect should be placed against the record and action should be taken to acquire it immediately, particularly if the finder is prepared to donate it.

RECOMMENDATION 2 : Someone should take a lead – it is proposed that it should be the geological warden at the Heritage Coast Centre. A list of recognised experts should be established and they should be notified of each record as it is made. A statement of interest and intent should be made against any records that experts feel are truly important to acquire. If the specimen is available for donation or sale, then it should be secured as soon as possible. NOTE: this recommendation is also made under the ‘Communications’ element within this issues section, Recommendation 17.

Where specimens are acquired through purchase, the process can be quite difficult. Museum curators are restricted from valuing specimens for a number of reasons. Curators of objects in all disciplines could be put in a difficult position if valuing objects which might be put up for sale. There are also the legal implications if an object is misidentified and as a result is sold beneath its value – e.g. a misidentified Constable! Curators have compiled information on value based on records of sales/auctions and the like. Perhaps

1 geological curators have disliked the implications of purchase for the very reasons already touched on – the shortage of funds – and indeed, the difficulty and time involved in raising funds. It could be argued that purchasing specimens will drive up their value. There appears to be a considerable disparity between the value put on, and paid, for art and archaeological objects compared to palaeontology. However, the fossils from the West Dorset coast do have a monetary value which reflects the time, skill and commitment to find them together with the days, weeks or even months of preparation. The value may be enhanced by the scientific importance, rarity or aesthetics of the specimen which may be released through preparation. Compared to cultural objects, it could be argued that the value of most fossils is very low. Unlike many cultural objects, no fossil under the code has been ‘sold to the highest bidder’; the value of specimens purchased has been arrived at through consensus and valuations from a range of people. The issue of valuation, trade and ownership of fossils is explored by Rolfe, W.D.I., Milner, A.C. & Hay, F.G., ‘ The price of fossils’ , Spec. Pap. Palaeont. 40, 1988, pp.139 -171.

Collecting Cultures Life Project – a small drop in a big ocean

Dorset County Council’s Museum Service, with the Team, successfully bid for £200,000 under the Heritage Lottery Fund ‘Collecting Cultures’, with a further £30,000 match funding from Dorset and County Councils, to assist nine museums along the coast to acquire and display fossils in their collections. The acquisition rationale was simple; to build up representative collections and acquire specimens of both educational and scientific value wherever possible. Lyme Regis and Bridport museums lie within the West Dorset code area and are benefiting accordingly.

Appendix 4 details the specimens acquired and the prices paid for them (including specimens not covered by the West Dorset code), based on the Heritage Lottery funded Collecting Cultures Jurassic Life project. The plesiosaur from was valued by local collectors and dealers at between £4,000 and £7,000. The top valuation was accepted by the collector and subsequently paid. One of the challenges with acquisition is arriving at a valuation for the specimens, particularly those that are rare or exceptional. The large Dapedium , collected in 1986, was one such example where independent valuations ranged from £8,000 to £12,000. The owner originally valued the specimen at £18,000 but accepted an offer of £15,750. A complete juvenile ichthyosaur, 53cm long, was identified for acquisition. This specimen was rescued from Broad Ledge before the code was established. The owner offered the specimen at £20,000, less than he considered it to be worth, but other valuations suggested a maximum value of £12,000. It was not possible to agree a price and the specimen was sold to a private individual for considerably more than the offer price made to Dorset County Council. Another specimen, Ichthyosaurus breviceps was identified (record 79). The collector was asking for £15,000 and valuations suggested a value of between £10,000 and £15,000. An offer of £15,000 was accepted by the collector, subject to confirmation of title. This specimen had come from the foreshore west of Charmouth, an area identified by the Crown Estate as having been sold to a private individual in the mid Nineteenth Century. Efforts by Dorset County Council to identify any relatives of the landowner were unsuccessful but by the time this work had been completed (more than six months later), the collector withdrew the specimen. In accordance with the code, the specimen had been offered to an accredited UK museum for more than six months and therefore the collector was free to sell the specimen elsewhere and as a result a fellow collector acquired it.

The significance of the Collecting Cultures funding cannot be over-emphasised as it has created a period of time when the funding for acquisition has been available to the museums and as a result, specimens of great scientific importance have been acquired,

2 particularly from outside the West Dorset coast; Portland, and . The acquisitions have been able to support scientific study and engagement between academics, collectors and museums. This must continue and there is a clear need for a fossil fund for the future.

RECOMMENDADTION 3: a/ Establish a fund, suggested to be a ‘ Fund’ to promote future acquisition of important fossils along the length of the World Heritage Site. Action for the WHS Team, the Dorset/Devon museum services and local museums. AND b/ consider further attempts to track down unknown landowners, principally those who own the foreshore ledges.

2 Defining scientific importance, awareness and promotion

The definition of scientific importance was drawn up following consultation with the academic community and it takes into account that museums already hold many thousands of fossils from the West Dorset coast. Appendix 5 contains the definitions of scientific importance within the code.

There is the potential for collectors not to be aware of the categories and whether their specimens may qualify. There are also some gaps. Under the code, all identifiable fish that can be linked to a stratigraphic horizon should be recorded. (The reason being that the NHM’s collection of over 400 Liassic fish, extensive as it is, lacks stratigraphic provenance and therefore any finds with such information are potentially useful in studying how fish recovered from the Triassic/Jurassic extinction event). A well preserved fish with no stratigraphical provenance does not need to be recorded. Should it? The same could apply to reptiles and lobsters for example.

RECOMMENDATION 4 : category 2 fish should include significant specimens even if their stratigraphic horizon is unknown (i.e. found ex situ ). A good example is record 125 ‘Head of large fish in limestone’ which would not necessarily qualify for recording. Linked to Recommendation 6.

RECOMMENDATION 5 : The same as above applies to crustaceans and therefore there is a need to provide better guidance on what a category 2 crustacean may be. Linked to Recommendation 6.

Several specimens have been recorded when they do not really qualify. Is there a need for a ‘Category 3’ level of specimens? The sorts of things that people might enthusiastically want to report but do not fit within the existing criteria? Examples might be records 100, 121 and possibly records 37, 42 and 43. By having this category, it might not ‘put people off’ recording future finds if they are disappointed first time round. It is probably easier to simply create a space on a web site, ideally the Charmouth Centre site, on which well preserved and/or interesting specimens can be displayed.

RECOMMENDATION 6 : Consider creating a web based gallery of well preserved and/or interesting specimens. There is a possibility here of incorporating this into a World Heritage Site wide recording scheme which is under consideration.

Fossil ‘fact sheets’ were to be produced several years ago but despite several prompts, very little information has come back from the academic community. The guide to the fossils of the Lower Lias by the Palaeontological Association has now been published. This will go quite some way towards achieving the fact sheets but it still may lack helpful guidance on

3 identifying specimens and/or areas of specific interest for future scientific study. The guide could form a starting point for a more focused piece of work.

RECOMMENDATION 7 : The production of simple, clear guidance on the scientific interests should still be produced.

3. Land ownership

Two landowners have signed up to the code, the National Trust being the owner of most of the coast covered by the code and Charmouth Parish Council which owns a significant section of cliff and foreshore. At the time the code was drawn up, the Crown Estate stated that they accepted the ‘status quo’. Another 11 landowners make up the rest of the coast. Most own very small sections where collecting is unlikely to be significant.

The main areas where landowners are not ‘signed up’ are the foreshore ledges between Charmouth and Lyme Regis which are attributed to family names from the middle of the Nineteenth century. Attempts to trace the modern relatives, and therefore, presumably the current owners, have proved difficult as illustrated by the attempted acquisition of record 79, the Ichthyosaurus breviceps under the Collecting Cultures Jurassic Life project. A search by the Dorset Museum Service proved fruitless. A second potential purchase was that of a juvenile ichthyosaur (pre code) from Broad Ledge which raised interest from the Crown Estate due to the value attributed to the specimen (£20,000). Discussions are ongoing with the Estate’s land agents but no conclusion has been reached to date.

RECOMMENDATION 8 : Further efforts should be made to track down the remaining foreshore landowners. The actions for the acquisition of record 79 may be enough for that area of foreshore but it has been suggested that an advertisement is made to inform anyone with legal entitlement, of the code, in a similar way to the notice required prior to undertaking coastal engineering works on land with similar issues.

RECOMMENDATION 9 : Discussions should continue with the Crown Estate regarding fossils found on the foreshore in the areas of their ownership. Fossil code record 202, an ichthyosaur recovered from Broad Ledge in January 2010, will provide a useful example to work through with the Crown Estate, step by step from the process of discovery to excavation, preparation and scientific assessment.

4. Quality of the records

There is an issue regarding accuracy, consistency within the recording scheme as is clearly illustrated by the discounted specimens which represent approximately 5% of the records. Question: Other than that, is the level of detail enough? (In order to answer this question, you need to look at the records on line at the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre, not the appendices of this report which are highly simplified). If, (based on recommendation 2) expert opinion is more actively acquired on future finds, then data could be considerably improved. There is a further issue with regard to the change in the whereabouts of specimens through time.

The recording of in situ and ex situ specimens has been inconsistent and therefore, for example, it is difficult to determine what has come from the Blue Lias east of Lyme Regis for purposes of comparison with the Blue Lias within the Undercliffs west of Lyme.

RECOMMENDATION 10 : Update the records in accordance with this review of the code (Appendix 2) and:

4

RECOMMENDATION 11 : Provide better guidelines for identifying specimens to be recorded and the data related to them.

There is an issue of multiple records for pieces of the same specimen, e.g. record 34, the where records 51, 52, 56 and 94 are all part of the same find. Record 187, the second dinosaur, is going to generate similar complications. The data is important and illustrates how a number of collectors can work together in the rescue of an important specimen but it leads to an increase in actual records that might be misinterpreted or counted as individual specimens in the record. In these cases, there is a need to record the specimen as one but to also capture the data on individual finds. The obvious way would be to record the finds as, for example 34 a, 34 b etc.

RECOMMENDATION 12 : Decide how best to record multiple finds belonging to one specimen.

The Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre web site contains a reasonably up-to-date list of specimens recorded but the individual records are hard to assess without a photograph to accompany each record. The web site does not contain photographs of all the specimens. The actual files of photographs are broken down into individual folders for each record. For ease of viewing/access it would be useful to have all the photographs under one folder, or possibly under group folders such as ‘reptiles’, ‘fish’ and ‘ammonites’ for instance with the record number and name as the file name for each image. Many photos are out of focus and next to useless and should be removed. Earlier photos are corrupted, in inappropriate file types and/or generally difficult to access. Photographs pre record number 76 are in a mess!

RECOMMENDATION 13 : Photographs should be re catalogued and rationalised.

Macro photography of insects is a problem as many images are out of focus or lack depth of field and or clarity.

RECOMMENDATION 14 : Undertake training and/or obtain better kit for macro photography. The new microscope acquired by the Centre may provide the answer.

Also assessing importance of a specimen from photographs is problematic. Better information is required from experts in the individual field of interest as soon as possible after the record is made.

RECOMMENDATION 15 : Better guidelines and/or, if practical, more review should take place before specimens are entered onto the recording scheme. This links on to Recommendation 2. It may be a matter of taking the details but then canvassing expert opinion before entering the specimen into the records.

5. Science along the coast

The coast has long been a source of reference in the developing sciences of geology; stratigraphy, sedimentology, palaeontology and geomorphology. Indeed, many of the early principles of the Earth sciences were established here and the coast is associated with several of the ‘great names’ in the subject; , William Conybeare, Henry De la Beche, W.D. Lang, W.J. Arkell and M.R. House. That ‘tradition’ continues today.

5 Criticisms have been directed at the code suggesting that the high level of collecting effort prevents scientific study of the coast, specifically in the field of stratigraphy. No evidence has been provided to support such claims. There may be a more widely shared view that specimens are harder to find now than thirty or forty years ago. However, this is not seen as specifically impeding scientific study . Looking at the category 1 specimens recorded over the last ten years, one can only wonder as to how many similar specimens were lost to the sea years ago when the collecting effort was less.

The geological/palaeontological and geomorphological interests of the West Dorset coast (and quite a large length of the rest of the coast) are at their best during and shortly after storms. These are the times when specimens are numerous or exposures not normally seen (especially foreshore outcrops) are uncovered. In reality, scientists cannot visit regularly or easily respond to storm events and universities do not appear to pay expenses for field work unless it is part of a research funded project (Page pers com., 30/09/2009). It is interesting to note that many of the great scientists associated with this coast lived near or moved here at some stage in their lives. W. D. Lang’s logs of the Lias were only completed once he had retired to Charmouth. He was so interested in the coast that he made it a part of his lifestyle choice and achieved great things as a result. Likewise, modern collectors who live locally, and can respond quickly to events as they happen, might, through the code, establish a productive and mutually beneficial link with the remote scientific community.

The WHS Team has a small research fund and is more than willing to partner and/or support relevant research projects (subject to available funding) but experience shows this to be difficult and challenging. The team has been able to support small research projects such as as a potential Global Stratotype, Section or Point (GSSP) and for Bournemouth University to undertake baseline studies of certain areas but larger projects such as supporting Imperial College in their bid to NERC for funding to interpret the multibeam sidescan sonar work recently collected by the Dorset Integrated Seabed Mapping project has failed.

The WHS team commissioned Plymouth University to undertake work towards a research strategy in 2008 and, useful as the work has been, it does not identify any easy or practical ways to use the WHS designation to promote research. To make an impact will require a very considerable change to the current structure and focus of the work with little assurance of success. That does not mean that the WHS team are unable or unwilling to find ways to support research, it is simply seen as difficult and challenging. Collaborative ventures are more likely to be successful.

One area where the WHS team, in partnerships with local museums, is clearly able to assist research is in the acquisition of important fossils. The Collecting Cultures funding has enabled a number of specimens to be purchased that are of considerable interest, most notably a carnivorous reptile jaw from that may be a new species, along with the plesiosaur from Golden Cap, and the pliosaur skull from Osmington, which caught the attention of the world’s media. The latter will be a significant partnership between the WHS team and scientists in the preparation, study, display and interpretation of this huge animal.

There is no specific recommendation under this issue; suffice to say that the review recognises this issue and the difficulties associated with funding science, promoting co- operation and communication. It is a hugely complex area woven throughout the review. The WHS team will continue to do what it can to support research proposals across the entire WH Site.

6

6. Communications

Communications are a further key area. Collectors live locally, while others come from much further away when they can. Some have e-mail but quite a few don’t. Virtually all scientists are remote from the coast and there are very few opportunities for the two to meet. There are notable exceptions but many of the links were forged years ago between the collectors who have been around for a long time. There is a new generation of collectors for whom few opportunities are afforded to meet academics and curators. The Lyme Regis Fossil Festival goes some way to creating an opportunity for the two to meet but one problem with the festival is that the collectors are placed in one tent selling fossils, while the museum staff are run off their feet doing hands on science demonstrations to the thousands of visitors.

RECOMMENDATION 16 : There is a need for an event at the Fossil Festival that showcases the exceptional fossils and creates the opportunity for collectors and experts in the relevant fields to meet.

The principal formal method of communication with collectors is through an annual letter although this has not been sent for two years now, initially due to waiting for the outcome of the legal action against digging in the cliff, which took considerably longer than anticipated and now, on the preparation of this review. There are many occasions for informal meetings with collectors while the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre plays an essential role.

The principal communication with scientists is through the Science and Conservation Advisory Network (SCAN) but this rarely involves specific specimens and is much more about communicating and obtaining expert advice about specific threats or opportunities along the WHS. Some collectors, who have contacts with the relevant experts, will talk to them about interesting and important specimens but this is the exception rather than the rule. The records are available on the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre web site but we have no idea who may or may not be accessing them. Once the specimens are recorded, they tend to be largely forgotten and the collectors, rightly or wrongly, assume that there is little or no interest from the academic community.

RECOMMENDATION 17 : Canvass the research community for experts who are willing and able to form an expert panel for identification and advice on specimens and for the communication of current scientific interest to collectors (linked to Recommendation 2).

RECOMMENDATION 18 : An annual report or summary of the code and the records should be produced for the collectors, academics and landowners.

7. Awareness of the code

There is certainly evidence that not all collectors are aware of the code. The Golden Cap plesiosaur is one example but luckily, because of the open policy of Natural , the landowners and the code, the collector had no reason to hide the specimen and when it came to light, the Collecting Cultures funding enabled the specimen to be purchased. There are no doubt other examples but it is obviously impossible to quantify either the number of collectors or specimens.

There was also a need to prompt collectors to record specimens prior to the review. As a result of that prompt, an additional 11 specimens were recorded (about 5% of all records)

7 over a three week period. There is a degree of scepticism amongst some collectors that no one is particularly interested or cares.

RECOMMENDATION 19 : Regularly prompt collectors to record their specimens. This could be linked to an ‘annual report’ of the code and the fossils recorded. This report could be made available to the National Trust in their reporting.

Role of the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre

Related to both communication and awareness of the code, the Centre is well placed on the ground to act as a focal point for the code but it almost certainly needs to forge closer links with the academic community (Recommendations 2 and 17) and, to a lesser extent, collectors. It is the link between the two and therefore plays an essential role. Many of the recommendations made here will become the work list for the Centre’s geological warden.

8. Digging in situ in the cliff

Digging, while in general and subject to scale, causing little or no damage to the scientific interests of the West Dorset coast, is a challenging issue with regard to safety and in that collectors following the code are in fact losing out to those individuals who choose to ignore the code and the wishes of the landowners.

Although digging has been greatly reduced, it has continued to some extent in the flatstone bed (Lang’s Bed 83) in the cliff below , east of Charmouth (see plates 7 and 8). Two individuals were repeatedly reported digging by local collectors, members of the public and a variety of professional staff, often during the peak summer period. On at least five occasions they were challenged by National Trust wardens or Charmouth Parish Council representatives or WHS team staff and asked to stop but continued regardless. As a result, the National Trust took legal steps to curtail their actions in the form of an injunction for trespass and theft. (NOTE: digging in the flatstone bed is not regarded as damaging the Site of Special Scientific Interest, which would be a criminal activity under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, as natural erosion rates are constantly refreshing the exposure). An injunction was secured in March 2010 against one individual together with a second injunction against ‘persons unknown’ for trespass, digging and removal of fossils from National Trust and Charmouth Parish Council land and explicitly the cliffs.

Digging by other collectors was reported on the 18th September 2009. Efforts were made to contact the possible offenders (identified by local collectors) but it was not possible to talk to them directly. The same two individuals were reported tooled up and heading for Stonebarrow on Saturday 12th December 2009. A member of the WHS Team responded and found the two collectors digging in the flatstone bed. A full and frank, but friendly, conversation led to an assurance that these collectors would not do this again.

A small amount of in situ digging has been observed within the /Spittles complex over the period that the code has been in operation but it has not been possible to clearly prove which individual or individuals are responsible. Since the legal action was initiated by the National Trust, this digging appears to have almost stopped.

8 Tourist digging

There have always been concerns about tourist digging in the cliffs. The 1982 public enquiry considered it and concluded that digging does not accelerate natural erosion. The Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre came about in an effort to focus interest and promote safe and successful collecting. However, ill informed tourists have continued to climb into and chip away at the soft cliffs. This is not seen as damaging the geological interests of the site, nor is it seen as significant in terms of eroding the site but it is potentially dangerous and causes objections and complaints.

Since 2007, the WHS Team and the Dorset Countryside Service have employed a summer warden whose primary objective is to patrol the beaches and persuade people off the cliffs and onto the beaches where the best fossils are to be found. The role has been seen as a very positive development but has not stopped and cannot stop everyone from clambering up the cliffs. There is very clear signage to warn people of the dangers, coupled with good advice on collecting fossils (including information about the code) but some people do not read signs or follow advice.

9