Heritage Action members recently had a meeting in Stony Stratford with Dr Mike Heyworth, Director of The Council for British Archaeology. Various areas of common interest were discussed at length including heritage protection, the Treasure Act, metal detecting/artefact hunting and the over-arching current concern for everyone – the funding crisis and the government’s wish to fill the gap by encouraging the development of The Big Society.
All in all it was a fruitful meeting with much common ground being evident and a considerable degree of agreement on the way forward.
The Heritage Journal 
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
19/04/2011 at 11:41
John Stokes
It is noted that, even though the subject matter included metal detecting, no person appears to have been invited to take part in this meeting, from the metal detectorists point of view.
One wonders whether it is not considered appropriate for there to be representation from all interested parties, and if so, why ?
I consider myself to be a responsible detectorist. I came into the hobby ten years ago, as I have a brother who has 30+ years experience, and who suggested that I may like to go with him one day. I did, and found my first hammered coin, which was duly handed to the FLO at Truro museum, because, I was told that it was the correct thing to do. I became addicted to detecting, because of that find, and what it meant to the history of the site we had been on. I began my learning circle.
The vast majority of those who are in, or come into the hobby are also responsible people, who may I say regard the “Hawks”, be they night or day, as scum. They are the ones who are the curse on the archeology of our great nation, they are SCUM, nothing more, nothing less.
If the archeological persons, and ALL other parties can work together, we can do something to put a stop to their evil actions, but, if the main body are isolated by folk who put everyone who owns a metal detector into the same basket, it can only be for the worst outcome overall.
Many of the finds which have come to the public eye, over many years, have been found by someone with a metal detector, and helped those who have specialist knowledge, the archeologists to do the rewriting of the history books, and not a single one of ue would have that part of it any other way. We are in our hobby because we do have an interest in the history of Great Britain, to which, in my case, I would add, getting much needed healthy exercise.
Instead of continual back stabbing, which does actually come from all sides, we need to, and must find a way to build bridges, which can only get stronger, the bigger they are.
Dr, Heyworth, please consider the help we can offer to all sides, and include us in future meetings. I feel sure that a man of your standing, and immense knowledge, can find one or two metal detectorists whom you feel could contribute to such gatherings.
John Stokes.
19/04/2011 at 13:31
Paul Barford
I think John, you will find that it was the CBA all those years ago that was responsible for changing the attitudes within the archaeological community which today favour working with detectorists. It was the CBA’s lead in this that led to the PAS being set up in the first place. It has been the CBA which has supported the PAS in its initiatives all down the line (ALL down the line). It was the CBA that drafted and helped agree the Code of practice for responsible Detecting which I assume you follow, and which creates the basis for the much-discussed bridge between the hobby and archaeology. The director of the CBA meets fairly regularly with representatives, both national as well as local, of your hobby and is on the whole pretty favourably disposed towards them, certainly against any discrimination, precisely on the grounds that they do it out of an interest in the history. This is a position he has held for many years, has written about, talked about. Quite a lot. So I really do not see what your complaint is.
But yes, the problem is isn’t it the ones that do not report what they find (whether or not they do it legally or illegally makes no difference to the loss of information). So after fifteen years of very hard and expensive liaison, and we are still losing information (legally and illegally), what do you – the detectorists – propose doing about it? Carrying on as if nothing was happening, shrugging our shoulders and walking away?
Perhaps the CBA was wrong in its assumption that if archaeologists treat metal detectorists as “partners” and hold out a hand to them, they will all adopt best practice and start working with them, rather than against them? Because that is PRECISELY what the CBA has been doing, and urging us all to do for coming up to fifteen years.
20/04/2011 at 11:00
John Stokes
Paul, do not take constructive suggestion as complaint. I, like many others, have an interest in best policy, and best practice, both within archeology, AND metal detecting.
It is for that reason that I made the suggestion I did, and would expand on now. Every interested faction needs to come together around as many tables as are necessary, in order to ensure that, EVERYTHING which can be done to protect our heritage, is done.
Your opinions are well know for being controvercial, whether entirely correct or otherwise. I respect the right of any person to state their case, no matter what it happens to be, but, I expect them to allow me the same right.
I again state that, in my humble opinion, ALL SIDES need to come together, in order to solve the problems which exist today. Nothing good will be achieved by using totally negative comments, as some are doing.
If you really feel that yours is the only way forward, then you are sadly disillusioned.
20/04/2011 at 14:40
heritageaction
Well John, it’s a bit of a rum idea that people can’t talk about metal detecting without a metal detectorist being present. And a bit rich really since the metal detecting forums have closed sections specifically to prevent the public from knowing what is being said!
It’s also a bit strange to suggest Paul’s ideas are controversial. All he has ever stood up for is conservation of our common inheritance (show us a single instance in his millions of words where that’s not true!) – and in the international context his views are mainstream thinking and it is PAS and metal detecting that are highly controversial, to put it politely.
As for you having “an interest in best policy” and everyone coming together to do “EVERYTHING which can be done to protect our heritage”, those are truly noble aspirations! How about starting by reading this and telling us why you and every one of your colleagues don’t act in exactly that way in the interests of the resource you say you are so anxious to protect? http://www.ethicaldetecting.org.uk/
In addition, how about you and all of your responsible colleagues condemning in the strongest possible terms the awful rally by Central Searchers outlined here by Paul? http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/04/royal-wedding-weekend-in-central.html There is no question, is there, that Central Searchers and their attendees repeatedly flout best practice and do much to harm our heritage? Once every “responsible” detectorist has acknowledged the fact it will be clear they are serious about acting in the interests of conservation, the landowner, the public and fairness and there’ll be a good basis for talking.
So the next move is yours. If you come to a website that believes in conservation and tell people you are responsible and want to do “EVERYTHING which can be done to protect our heritage” you must expect to be asked to show you really mean it. Talking the talk means little unless you walk the walk. Here’s your moment.
21/04/2011 at 12:15
Peter Twinn
Although I have respect for John in what he has set out I personally think the CBA have every right to talk to HA, whether people feel they’re anti detecting (which I don’t believe Nigel is, just anti non recording) or not.
For me the likes of Paul Barford and Nigel Swift have acted as a continuing riposte to the inconsistent hobby that I have been a member of for the past 30 years.
I have always stated and believed that the hobby would take time to adopt and use the PAS and change its ways, something that to a point has happened, but the sad truth is that there are still far too many people who do not record their finds with the PAS; after the scheme was rolled out nationally some 8 years ago in 2003, but started in some pathfinder areas from 1997.
This has not gone unnoticed and nor should it, the erosion of finds (from a finite resource) continues at a steady pace, large tracts of countryside becoming nothing but material culture ‘black holes’, through rallies, some club digs, and the choices made by some individuals who detect alone or with friends. Of course many say that recording finds is ‘voluntary’ and not compulsory, well yes that’s true, but to take that stance is to ignore the raison d’être for the PAS in the first place. It was seen by all parties as the way to preserve the hobby of metal detecting, but as long as finds were recorded for future generations. To me a good analogy is not using your breaks while driving a car. You have the choice, but you don’t have to if you don’t want to…..knowing that at some point you’ll probably face a crash!
Responsible detecting is just that, responsible! Again the fact is that there is still a large group within the hobby who either don’t follow the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting, only pay lip service to it, or couldn’t even tell you what was in it!
I certainly don’t agree with all that Paul or Nigel say or do, but their presence and opposition has always been a good thing, challenging those that care and don’t care alike. If the CBA are networking with such bodies then that must make people sit up and think, ‘what is metal detecting achieving in Britain today?’ Is it missing the mark and falling short? Does the CBA feel that as the PASs main supporter, as Paul Barford states, that everything is not so good and maybe tighter regulations are required?
That in itself should be seen as a wake up call, so agree with this or not, what is coming is of the hobbies own making, you can’t blame the messenger when the message is not one people wish to hear, or act upon!
Nothing new from me and just my personal opinion of course.
22/04/2011 at 07:10
Nigel
Interesting stuff Peter. A couple of points.
It’s not merely that there are “far too many people who do not record their finds with the PAS” is it? The indications are that after all these years the great majority of recordable finds aren’t recorded. That’s a deal breaker as it isn’t what was expected or hoped for or considered acceptable. In the early years it was claimed ad nauseam that all that was needed was time and patience and most detectorists would come round. I haven’t heard that said for years by either detectorists or PAS. I suspect that, beyond the public posturing, everyone knows the truth of it.
And all the while of course, as you say, “the erosion continues at a steady pace, large tracts of countryside becoming nothing but material culture ‘black holes’, through rallies, some club digs, and the choices made by some individuals who detect alone or with friends”. That’s just not acceptable to any thinking person be they responsible detectorist, archaeologist or member of the public and I think calling me the Devil and you Judas or saying the Erosion Counter is nonsense won’t change the reality that the original social contract between the government and detectorists has simply not worked well enough by an absolute country mile and a new one is needed, but this time with more of the C word (compulsion).
Cue the fury, the insistence upon the ancient rights of freeborn Englishmen and the threats that todays heroes will retaliate by becoming tomorrows nighthawks! But its worth reflecting that regulating what detectorists do would impose zero burden on those like you who already do right by society, and who therefore won’t even notice a change. To complain about regulation is to admit to needing to be regulated. And anyway, in my view the idea that the PAS system is “voluntary” has always been a huge fallacy. If you want to do right you act right, it’s a moral imperative not something you can just opt out of merely because there are no legal means to stop you. Big mistake the Voluntary element of the PAS system (though generous and trusting). “You can continue to act in a damaging and morally reprehensible way if you wish”. And thousands have said for nearly fifteen years “Ah thanks, I think I will”.
That’s not me talking. It’s the stats! 😉
22/04/2011 at 10:31
Peter Twinn
Nigel wrote, “In the early years it was claimed ad nauseam that all that was needed was time and patience and most detectorists would come round.”
Indeed, and I was one of the main proponents of this argument, something that has failed to happen. I wouldn’t choose these days to make such statements because the fact is that people choose not to record their finds even when they know the PAS is their last best hope.
Some clubs are actively asked not to record their finds, or at least the the very bare minimum, which is about as useful as a chocolate tea pot! Two clubs in southern Britain in recent times have shown the state of play as far as I’m concerned, the first was looking to appoint a new chairman, who said that if he became chairman he would want the FLO banned from club meetings! Fortunately he was voted down.
Secondly, another club has seemingly turned away from recording with the PAS and suggesting their members should record with the UKDFD. Now the UKDFD is what it is, but what it isn’t is the official conduit set up by the Government to record finds on a database for the Nation. Nothing, but nothing should be placed before it, and if it is then those people in my view automatically place themselves in the irresponsible group and should be given no truck!
These two examples are why I personally feel that metal detecting as a hobby is inertly flawed. There is no single voice, there is too much fluidity with those who come and go with no sense of having to do the right thing by what they do or don’t do in a field with their finds.
We have the NCMD, FID (with who most detectorist join to get their Public Liability Insurance to access rallies or club digs in the main), clubs and individual detectorist and nothing that comprehensively binds them together. This division is the Achilles heal, something that will never be surmounted due to past political falling outs and fractious nature that detecting is with allegiances to either this group or that group, this online forum or that online forum . The hobby is totally split in that there are people who reside on both sides of the responsible or irresponsible argument.
So to me the only way to bring such divisions together is from an ‘outside the hobby solution’. Something that will place all detectorist, new or old, into some kind of conformity. Personally I can’t ever see the hobby finding agreement within itself so if we continue going as we are we can expect some kind of restrictions to bring about this conformity…and rightly so.
What cannot continue is this ‘castle mentality’ where people think because they can pull a certain drawbridge up they’re somehow safe or immune from the choices they make. Not so. Such mentality is flawed and of course division usually brings about a demise at some point.
What I do find sad is that those who choose to do the right thing, both individuals and clubs, are often relegated to being tarred with the ‘same brush’ mentality. If only there was a way of separating the wheat from the chaff, but I think as you say, those people wouldn’t notice any real difference!
You will never stop irresponsible metal detecting, but if the vast majority of ordinary people who go out each week to enjoy a pastime are to continue unabated then someone needs to lay down some more stringent rules, processes and boundaries.
These are of course my views and they would be considered extreme by some, but common sense by others, but that just proves my argument about the fractious nature of the hobby. What is needed is a debate, and then a solution, no matter how unpalatable that may be for some. That debate should not be restricted to who talks to who, it should be one that finds a solution to the demise of material culture from historic environment, after all that belongs to all of us and we should all find the best way fo preserving that.
22/04/2011 at 19:06
Nigel
Peter, I think we’ve come to many of the same conclusions based on the same evidence. Although –
“You will never stop irresponsible metal detecting”
Not by persuasion, clearly, but I don’t buy the claims that the law can’t complete the job or that it would create thousands of nighthawks. A fiction of convenience IMO. And bravado. See Ireland (and that was a ban, not regulation).
Loads of people risking prison because they didn’t want to keep to the rules of their hobby? Gerroff. The first few convictions would stop all that. PAS shouldn’t be telling people metal detectorists are ungovernable when they know otherwise.
“but if the vast majority of ordinary people who go out each week to enjoy a pastime are to continue unabated then someone needs to lay down some more stringent rules, processes and boundaries.”
Well I don’t think the vast majority will continue long term unless they are prepared to toe the conservation line (and not see it as some sort of defeat at the hands of The Establishment, which many seem to regard it as. More childishness I’m afraid. It’s the ruddy resource, not a gang fight.)
But by “more stringent rules” I presume you didn’t mean voluntary ones (the current NCMD- emasculated voluntary CoP attracts insufficient adherents as it is, a stricter one would attract still fewer). It would have to be parliament. But that’s not on the current cards. So in my view, as you know, the current best way forward is a split. Let the right-doers do right and get the kudos and the support and the permissions and the ear of government and let those who won’t join them get none of the above. I think we’ve been here before. And remember who squashed the idea? Tailcoat hangers, people with a vested interest in retaining YOU as a colleague! Go on, you know you want to. Think of the relief of not having thousands of refuseniks round your neck and being tarred with the same brush. 😉
IMO there are essential elements of nearly all metal detecting/artefact hunting that makes it less than lovable no matter how much chat is expended: it’s a personally acquisitive and random process. If it involved structured, targeted investigations at pre-determined places for public benefit in contrast to lucky dip sessions wherever a willing farmer pops up then what’s not to love? John et al call for a coming together, an end to back-stabbing and no more negativity towards the hobby. In his dreams I’m afraid, until it’s no longer essentially self-seeking presented as having a mere spin off of some public benefit. Not with a finite public resource. If he’s going to dip into it he’ll have to be doing it primarily for public benefit and entirely in a publicly acceptable way. Why should the public accept less?
It crosses my mind that if ever a group of detectorists did set up an elite (and lovable) group their standards would have to extend far above mere PAS compliance. PAS was a government coping strategy, a halfway house between good and bad practice, based on a perception of what was possible on a voluntary basis, not on what was right for the resource or public. Quite how they’d react to a detectorists’ group that told them, with absolute truth that they were too lax in their stewardship of the resource I’m not sure. They couldn’t deny it for sure as they know it’s true. The fact there’s ample scope for it to happen speaks volumes about the whole 15 year strategy.
/rant.
18/05/2011 at 11:27
Graham
Have a look at our site http://www.tywardreath.com, see what we have achieved, a battlefield project run by detectorists.
18/05/2011 at 12:11
Nigel
Hi Graham,
Many thanks for that. Very interesting and very impressive. I hardly need tell you we aren’t against metal detecting per se, only against metal detecting that bears zero resemblance to what you are doing. Whereas your own survey appears to be highly structured, non-acquisitive, carried out in conjunction with a battlefield archaeologist, enjoys the benign interest of the Battlefields Trust and CBA and will yield a permanent public archive, knowledge-gain and communal benefit, most of the activity that unfortunately shares it’s name with yours doesn’t!
My only gripe about LMD (laudable metal detecting) is that it gives a good name to the rest! As I said to Peter Twinn above, the two ought to go their separate ways – both for the sake of the resource and the laudable detectorists!