by Gordon Kingston, Heritage Action
The other day, at the end of an article that one of us wrote about Stonehenge, a metal detector user wrote the following comment;
“Organise a Metal Detecting rally in the fields nearby ?, That should boost the coffers a bit…”
When we hadn’t published the comment – after just an hour, or two – it was enhanced with this;
“Why ask for comments if your just going to delete them you Muppet…
It was a sensible comment and one that would of generated revenue..
Just because you and your proffesion are being outdone by so called Amateurs like myself…
Just adds to my belief that your afraid ,,,, Very very afraid….
Enough said..
I am a Metal Detectorist and proud of it…”
He gave his name and the web address of, presumably, his club (named as their “detectorist of the year“), but we refrained from publishing what he had to say. How could you put something like that up as a response, except as an illustration – in anger veritas – of how fundamentally opposed archaeology and metal detecting are? You may not have noticed, but, since the finding of the Staffordshire hoard, an hubristic force has been building in the metal detecting community, like gathering thunder, and those comments sum it up better than I ever could. When you live in the jungle, danger may be an everyday fact of life, but to an outsider it would seem impossible – unnecessary, even – to live under those circumstances. Similarly, as an Irishman, I find it, to put it bluntly, grotesque, that anyone should think that such a rally could actually take place in the fields around Stonehenge – which are part of a protected World Heritage Site – and that they thought that the suggestion was “a sensible comment”.
Is it any wonder that our criticism is met with anger from metal detector users? It is both hobby and narcotic, don’t you think? Its features include the thrill of the hunt, regular hits of reward or possession and, ever-present (it could be you?), the tantalising possibility of hitting a lottery-like jackpot. If you recall Mike Parker Pearson’s long, painstaking, but ultimately rewarding, excavation in one of those same ‘fields around Stonehenge’ (the site of Bluestonehenge), how – again – grotesque is a proposition that the archaeological record of a similar piece of ground should be destroyed in a single afternoon, for a ‘hobby‘, for a ‘buzz’, for ‘profit’ – or, in the words of our correspondent – to “generate revenue” to spend on heritage? “You and your profession are being outdone by so called Amateurs like myself”. This is true, although not in the way that it was intended when written.
The law as it stands, in England and Wales, is that there is no restriction on metal detecting for archaeological objects outside of scheduled monuments and some other more locally restricted locations. A voluntary code recommends that users limit their activities to ground already heavily disturbed by the agricultural process, but there is no legal compulsion on them to do so. It is also recommended that they report what they find, but there is, again, no legal compulsion – except in the case of gold, silver and a limited number of other ‘treasure’ items. Ownership of nearly all found archaeological objects and the consequent ability to decide on their fate, rests, ultimately, with the finder and the landowner. The legal restrictions that – in stark contrast – pertain in other European countries are usefully set out on the National Council for Metal Detecting website. If you read through the page you will note that it is careful to list the laws in three areas; metal detecting, archaeological object ownership and reward. All are pertinent.
In a response to Minister Avril Doyle’s presentation of the 1987 National Monuments (Amendment) bill to the Irish Seanad, a member quoted from the Office of Public Works’ ’Irish Field Monuments’ and I will do so again here, to demonstrate (with eloquence), the dangers of this unqualified archaeological excavation by metal detector users;
“Modern archaeological excavation is a highly skilled activity requiring much expertise in the recovery of the evidence and in its interpretation and publication. Contrary to popular opinion archaeologists do not excavate in order to find gold or other valuable objects. Rather their intention is to get the maximum information about the past from the ground. Objects found in an excavation are important principally because of their recorded association with other objects, structures, layers or features. For this reason it is important that unqualified persons should not undertake archaeological excavation and if by accident a discovery is made everything should be left as it is without any further uncovering of the object or feature or any other disturbance of the immediate area until an official inspection has been made.”
And continuing, from my own copy;
“Section 26 (1) of the National Monuments Act 1930 makes it unlawful to excavate for archaeological purposes without a licence from the Commissioners of Public Works. Their consent is also required to use a metal detector for the purpose of searching for archaeological objects according to section 2 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1987. Such consents are normally issued only to qualified and experienced archaeologists.”
__________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
__________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
34 comments
Comments feed for this article
22/06/2010 at 09:59
Ros Ó Maoldúin
Crime scenes present a good analogy for archaeological sites. Would you allow random untrained members of the public onto a crime scene, with a metal detector!
22/06/2010 at 14:32
diggingthedirt
Interesting question: is it right to outlaw metal detecting, like in Ireland, where you can only use one if you are eligible to hold an excavation licence and have demonstrated (with a method statement submitted to the statutory authorities) the specific question you intend to answer with its use.
Or should we, like in the UK, encourage the use of metal detectors amongst anyone who wants to have a go, and set up a Portable Antiquaries Scheme in order to record anything that subsequently gets found.
Some would say that Ireland has its head in the sand if it thinks that a hurdle of paper work will stop detecting related heritage crime. Others baulk at the UK approach – to draw a metaphor, effectively legalising drug-dealing in order to remove the crime usually associated with that black market trade.
I’m undecided, but I’ve posted this to the diggingthedirt.com discussion page, so there may be more comments there:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/diggingthedirt/111694768867856
22/06/2010 at 18:04
Gordon
Thanks for the post – I’ve a couple of more parts to come in the next day or two which will, hopefully, address those issues. Regarding ‘record anything that subsequently gets found’, you might find the following, from Ebay’s Antiquities Buying Guide, somewhat depressing;
“… there is no legal obligation to report finds from England and Wales unless they are Treasure” – the code of practice merely “recommends that all finds are reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme”.
27/06/2010 at 12:42
heritageaction
Or, only advise them to let you know if they find the murder weapon (which they will be, most likely, adding to their collection, or trying to sell). Or, only require them to hand it over if it was a certain type, say, a semi-automatic – in which case, and to continue the analogy, any ‘fingerprints’ that might tie a perpetrator to the ‘crime’ will be gone before it gets to you anyway.
07/07/2010 at 15:51
Jonathan Jarrett
I work at a museum which records UK coin finds for the early Middle Ages, and I have to give a warning from the inside that the infrastructure simply isn’t there to record much more than we already do. Detectorists we are in contact with suggest that we hear about something like ten per cent of what’s found. If that was all coming our way we’d have three or four detector finds to log every day, it would need at least a part-time dedicated member of staff. What we are getting may not be representative, and it may be upsetting possible dig sites, but there aren’t resources to orchestrate its control any further no matter how desirable that may or not be. So the UK choice is either to have what we have or shut it down as in Ireland (or worse, like Spain). I think most people studying the past would rather have some information than none…
07/07/2010 at 17:18
Gordon
Thanks for the input Jonathan – although I’d agree with your last sentence, I don’t think that unlicensed metal detecting is necessarily the way to do it. I certainly wouldn’t describe the information situation in Ireland as ‘none’. Or (in the absence of metal detecting) in England and Wales, for that matter; I noted in the PAS stats for the last four years – while researching the articles – that about 15% of the objects that are reported come from other sources (arch. investigation, field-walking, gardening etc.) – an average of about 10,000 artefacts a year.
I know, its easy for me to sit here picking holes, but how perplexing must it be to work in a system that on the one hand encourages users to record and on the other hand can’t handle it if they do?
07/07/2010 at 17:54
Nigel
“I think most people studying the past would rather have some information than none…”
I think most people concerned about conservation would question whether getting “some” information at the expense of losing a much larger amount forever is an appropriate legacy to leave to the future. It is perhaps not a matter of what “we” would rather have since it is in toto no more our resource than it is metal detectorists’. Certainly that is the view that tends to prevail elsewhere.
08/07/2010 at 15:49
Jonathan Jarrett
Sorry, I should make clear, I’m not advocating unlicensed metal detecting per se. And, as an archaeological tool, there are definite problems with metal detecting’s selectiveness; you only get information about relatively flat areas, you don’t get information from areas with only ferrous metal however interesting they might be… I think that a list of people who’ve bought metal detectors and perhaps some kind of yearly tax return of finds listed and where sold that can be checked against reports and catalogues could be a useful compromise, and I agree that some compromise is desirable. The bigger practical question however remains: where’s the money coming from? If we can’t answer that question then, as I say, the options are simply: what we have now, criminalising unlicensed detector use (which involves a license scheme) or banning detecting outright. Anything else requires more infrastructure, not less.
The ideals are a fine thing to debate, but if you want real-world answers the money question has to be answered too.
08/07/2010 at 20:16
heritageaction
Perhaps we should look to other countries and see how they cope with the difficulties.
None of them appears to feel a need to follow the British model.
27/10/2010 at 12:08
Craig.slater
Why offer the choice to post a comment on your views ? Because the way i see it you refrain from using it unless it backs you up ???? If its not what you want to hear then you pick small quotes from it to publish in a twisted way to damage relotionships beween Detectorists and your Proffession.
Regards
Craig.
27/10/2010 at 13:23
Pat
Well, we published your “I go on Ridge and furrow regular and make no opologies for doing so, So shove your morals where the sun dont shine” posting in full so you can hardly accuse us of showing you in a bad light can you?
I doubt we’ll publish anything else you say though. You’ve made yourself totally clear.
27/10/2010 at 21:44
Craig.slater
Well Pat i never saw it,,, And can you blame my views ?? we get slated at every turn for trying to do the right thing…. I record with the PAS i only go on land with full permission from the land owner , i dont dig more than plough depth, So my comments are bourne from frustration at the likes of Gordon who resent people like myself. And think its okay to dig up human corpses because he has a PHD………………………
27/10/2010 at 22:13
day nodder
Ridge and furrow,is ok but its better to take top 12 inch off with a jcb first
to get at the goodies
27/10/2010 at 23:02
Gordon
Sorry Pat. I will just answer this one.
Craig, its probable that you’re extrapolating a community-wide standard of behaviour from one individual (yourself) and the stats don’t back that standard up.
27/10/2010 at 23:03
Gordon
Quite.
27/10/2010 at 23:33
Craig.slater
The Stats are quite clear Gordon …..//// WE FIND YOU DONT |||….. wonder why ????????????? love to take you to a DMV that you dont know about………….TUFFF
28/10/2010 at 08:58
Pat
“The Stats are quite clear Gordon …..//// WE FIND YOU DONT |||….. wonder why ????????????? love to take you to a DMV that you dont know about………….TUFFF”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You seem to be under the impression HA is an archaeologists’ website. Not so. It is not necessary to be an archaeologist to resent you helping yourself to the communal history any more than it is necessary to be a botanist or ornithologist to see that people who take birds eggs or rare flowers for their own collections are not acting in everyone’s interest.
As for Gordon being educated, well yes he is. I’m not quite sure how you think that makes him unqualified to see what your activity is bringing about. Does he need to be stupid to “get it”?
Talking of being stupid: you report all your finds to PAS do you? And yet : “love to take you to a DMV that you dont know about………….TUFFF”
Message received.
28/11/2010 at 22:56
Peter Abbott
As a member of a well established metal detecting club here on the Sussex Coast, I would like to tell you all that one of our chaps is now working on a years secondment at Lewes Museum,a very responsible and knowledgable man.
Poacher turned gamekeeper, surely not, the argument for and against metal detecting is slowly waning, but as you see on this site there are some that wish perpetuate it, Yes you have heard this before,but our club which has been in exsistance for nearly 36 years is like the vast majority of Detecting clubs up and down the lenght and breadth of this countryare very responsible.
We do work with Archeaologists with never any conflict , the contribution/finds made by detecterists are published every year in the Portable Antiquities And Treasure Annual Report.
Here is a table indicating Method of Discovery from the 2007 Edition which covers England and Wales only. these are registered finds.
Metal Detecting………………………………61,981
Chance Finds While Metal Detecting…….3,023
Field Walking ………………………………….8,365
Other Chance Finds/ Gardening…………..3,090
Controlled Archaeological Investigations .153
Building Agricultural Work……………………365
29/11/2010 at 03:32
Pat
“…… these are registered finds.”
Precisely. And their numbers are dwarfed by the finds that aren’t reported to PAS, as PAS confirms. That is the problem. And not mentioning it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
“our club which has been in exsistance for nearly 36 years is like the vast majority of Detecting clubs up and down the lenght and breadth of this countryare very responsible.”
Great, so presumably as “very responsible” detectorists you’ll all be happy to comply with the pledges of the Ethical Metal Detecting Association?
http://www.ethicaldetecting.org.uk/
There can be no reason not to, can there, being very responsible? Or could it be people who announce they are very responsible are just that, people who announce they are very responsible?
29/11/2010 at 18:30
Peter Abbott
Pat thank you for your reply ,I am sure there have been unreported items in the past and and there will be some in the future , but your statement that its dwarfed by finds that are reported is fictional and can not be substantiated., where as the Annual Reports are facts, in black and white for every one to see.
The best way forward , is to except that metal detecterists are not going away ,as a club we dont just record what comes under the treasure act , we record and log all finds.
The hobby has become a casualty of its own popularity, and all clubs have waiting lists , there are new clubs being formed , but its all so very difficult to get land to detect, so for those that are not in clubs , Rallies or other legitimate organised digs are all thats left to them.
For those that do it any other way! out of frustration or ingnorance its no excuse and I hope they get there legs chopped off when they are caught,but they are a very very small and diminishing minority.
As a club we have a Rally once a year which is suppervised and marshalled by club members and is attended by an FLO , it raises a few pounds for the club but the greater amount goes to charity.
There are out there, some organisations that organise Rallies on a commercial scale two and three day events , I think this is extracting the proverbial, and they are not helping our cause anyway what so ever.
Nowdays walking across a field with a metal detecter in your hand with out permision is paramount to having a shot gun under your arm ,as far as a farmer is concerned, if your caught your going to get your collar felt, there are laws in place that they will use ,going equiped to steal ,trespass and criminal damage, to name a few.
I would like to see the NMDC the IMDC give some kind of accreditation to all Metal detecting clubs which use there insurance maybe a register and maybe some form of copliance, but all this should be done voluntarily within the Metal Detecting Fratternity
Responsible Metal Detecterists in this country have over the past few years found treasures that are now part of our national Heritage on show for all to see, with out them they would be still in the ground, and may never had been found.
These finds that are not reported how do you know how many there are if there not reported, or will I start going around in a circle now and disappear.??
29/11/2010 at 18:57
Pat
I didn’t catch your reply about whether you and all your colleagues are happy to comply with the pledges of the Ethical Metal Detecting Association. http://www.ethicaldetecting.org.uk/
29/11/2010 at 21:32
Peter Abbott
Never heard of them who are they and what do they do ??
30/11/2010 at 00:12
Peter Abbott
I have now perused it and I thought it was very good , exactly what I would have expected , and totaly unbiased in every way. but I fear there would be more chance of the Elgin Marbles being returned to Greece or the return of the Rosetta stone, than this draft be excepted by any detecterist.
I can see you that you dont have any agenda , and you are only trying to be fair to everybody well done you.
If you do have anymore of those sensible and contructive ideas and pledges I would be all ears ,and will relay this to all our club members thank you so much…………………Peter
01/12/2010 at 01:57
Pat
Many thanks. One thing though, it is not about being totally fair to “everybody”, only to landowners and the public.
As for you believing it won’t be excepted (I expect you mean accepted) by any detectorists you are mistaken. Some detectorists act in a perfectly ethical fashion already and have done for years without making a fuss. An embarrassing but inescapable fact for the rest of you I’m afraid and one which self-proclaiming oneself as “very responsible” doesn’t remove.
01/12/2010 at 18:19
Peter Abbott
Pat you have no argument , you and your humbristic group, will achieve nothing,with your confrontational attidudes towards metal detecterists , we will carry on reporting our ever increasing finds,discovering the past for the nation, before it all gets ploughed under or destroyed by chemicals.
We allready have under the treasure act THE CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESPONSIBLE METAL DETECTING wich was indorsed by the main archaelogical bodies and landowner organisations. I am sure that if your opinion had been sought , things would have changed dramaticaly, they obviously did not know how inportant you were at the time.
It is very welcome that museums are ingreasingly able to aquire Treasure finds,
thanks to the generosity of the increasing numbers of finders and land owners who donate their share of reward.
Pat what s been your contribution, I bet your real asset to the country , and to archeaology, ……………………………….Peter
01/12/2010 at 19:41
Pat
Well Peter, you will find no archaeologist or PAS staff member disagreeing with the pledges as an expression of what you ought to be doing in order to be fair to the landowners and public. And I suspect you know that.
02/12/2010 at 17:51
Peter Abbott
The EMDA webb site correct me if I am wrong, is only a template designed to inspire some detecterists to form a group based upon simmilar EMDA aspirations .then it goes on to say they must fully accept the EMDA version of a group and comply with EMDA pledges,So its not designed for simmilar groups .
02/12/2010 at 21:01
Nigel
No, you have misquoted and consequently misrepresented what it says. It ACTUALLY says “The above is a template designed to inspire some ethical detectorists to form a group based upon similar aspirations. THE FORUM is one in which only ethical detectorists and others who fully accept the version of ethical detecting reflected by the EMDA pledges will be authorised as members.”
The reason that particular wording was chosen is because no ethical detectorist would or could (or does) do other than fully accept all ten pledges and we were very, very anxious to exclude from the discussions anyone who thought they’d like to dumb down and emasculate them and still claim to landowners they were acting ethically. There has been quite enough faux ethicality proclaimed at farm gates and in comments on this thread.
I trust this makes the nature of EMDA crystal clear. It is for the benefit of landowners, ethical detectorists and the public, no-one else.
That’s all thanks, for reasons here – https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/submission-guidance-for-articles-and-comments-2/
03/12/2010 at 12:29
Peter Abbott
Obviously my command of the English language is different to yours ,to act similar is to imply similarity not the same but similar,which when read may be iterpreted by those who would like to see changes within the hobby as a way to discusions .
But as you have indicated thats not the case, and your pledges are what you would like all metal detecterists to comply to, and there is absolutely no other way and no compromise .and its not worth disscusing.
I dont see to many detecterists rushing to form EMDA groups , because its not practical , its a bit like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas
03/12/2010 at 17:01
Pat
“its not practical”
………
I think we both know otherwise.
What you actually mean is it’s embarrassing.
As indeed it is meant to be.
03/12/2010 at 22:16
Peter Abbott
Come on Pat Jaw Jaw is better than war war,I have all ready conceded that there are issues that need to be resolved ,and there are others in the metal detecting fraternity that think the same.
Its not embarrassing for me at all , I am afraid the gene was let out of the bottle ages ago,and it started to go out of contol,but it has been reigned in, not enough for some,but it has produced loads.
To control it the PAS was formed, payments were made via the treasure act on items that were kept or bought by a museums,this was introduced so that
treasure call it what you like was not sold off else where, as there was now no need because under the treasure act it had to pay the market price.
This works well and was a definite incentive for metal detecterists to report , then a problem, as more and more was found reported and aquired , items like hoards , Staffordshire is a clasic example, started to bust through the resources and the money allocated for aquisitions .
This has ment other museums have not been able to have a share to make there own aquisitions ,probably why the Cumbrian Roman Helmet sold for £2.3m will now leave the country ,which is so sad.
Its like they cant live with us ,but you cant live without us there is a way im sure, will it be the EMDA ETHICAL METAL DETECTING ASSOCIATION way or
EMDA END METAL DETECTING ASSOCIATION way!!
I now rest my case , and a Happy Christmas to one and all
04/12/2010 at 11:29
Nigel
“Come on Pat Jaw Jaw is better than war”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No thanks. Unlike PAS we don’t have to pretend that means anything in the case of most metal detectorists. It has long been apparent that “let’s talk” is an excuse not a proposal.
The proof of that particular pudding is that neither you nor any of your colleagues who have been frantically claiming the ten EMDA pledges are impractical or in need of negotiation have ever indicated in what way. The reason isn’t hard to see – they are ALL perfectly fair and reasonable to the landowners and the public so suggesting specific amendments is to suggest ways of working against the interests of landowners and the public and for the selfish interests of detectorists.
Unless of course you (or any of your colleages) care to prove me wrong and indulge in your claimed predeliction for Jaw Jaw by itemising precisely what’s wrong with each of the pledges and precisely how each one should be amended to better serve the interests of landowners and the public (we won’t hold our breath though):
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
02/12/2011 at 16:42
fk u
some of the finest treasures in europe – if not the world, have been discovered by people using metal detectors. it seems, that only after such treasure is found, do the ‘experts’ come in with their size 10’s on shouting the odds about how bad these metal detecting ‘people’ are. go fuck yourself and stop thinking that the best way to preserve our history is to leave it in the ground to rot to nothing. you fkn retard.
02/12/2011 at 19:48
heritageaction
Thanks.