by Nigel Swift
A second series of Britain’s Secret Treasures is coming soon. Regtons, Britain’s biggest metal detector retailer, told us the first series caused a boom in sales, especially of starter machines. Others took careful note too it seems. Here’s a picture we took yesterday in a Midlands branch of a nationwide chain of 200 electrical superstores.
A fully functioning entry-level metal detector for £19.99! Very basic, certainly, but perfectly able to let someone find, remove and tell no-one about every single metal artefact in the top two or three inches of every field in Britain. And here’s the best bit – if you order one on line they’ll deliver it to your door within 90 minutes! Or indeed, within 90 minutes of the first programme starting. Or of the start of the first “half-hour, peak-time free advert” as their marketing department might say.
It’s not unreasonable to think they’re aiming to sell at least 50 units in each shop to make it worthwhile (and no doubt better models once the bug has bitten – they have a whole range). That would suggest they alone are hoping to create 10,000 new metal detectorists in the next few months. Once ITV and the Portable Antiquities Scheme have jubilated for a few nights about the gold that’s waiting in the fields they may well achieve their aim. People might ask how many of those 10,000 newbies (and the many tens of thousands to be created by other retailers) will heed any ditchwater-dull “best practice” messages that ITV may reluctantly allow to be inserted between the silver oohs and golden aahs in the programmes? Not many I should imagine. After the last series there was a huge boom in detector sales but not a commensurate one in recording. Seriously, what does that tell you?
This stuff only happens in Bonkers Britain, remember, and professionals abroad tend to look on with horror, not admiration. As my French archaeologist friend says: “La Grande-Bretagne est irresponsable avec son patrimoine, n’est-ce pas?” Yes Philippe, Britain IS irresponsible with its heritage and some might think the problem isn’t just irresponsible detectorists but also grossly irresponsible archaeologists, but as a mere amateur I couldn’t possibly comment.
__________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
__________________________________________________________
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
02/03/2013 at 09:29
Mike
Now this is just nonsense.
I think you need to learn the art of research, then you might understand that a metal detector like the above listed one will barely find metal items staring you in the face lying on the surface let alone under any kind of soil.
Run it over a manhole cover and it just might detect it.
Anybody who starts with one of those is very unlikely to keep detecting as it is a bit like buying a cheap toy telescope and hoping to see the rings of Saturn. Most folks drop it in a day or two and never go back.
02/03/2013 at 10:04
Nigel S
The manufactures say the machine has a detection depth of 10cm (3.9″). My text stated it is perfectly able to detect “in the top two or three inches” and I stand by that, I know it to be true. If you think I didn’t carry out research before writing this article you’d be very much mistaken.
I am very used to artefact hunters seeking to convince people a lot of machines are completely useless (and therefore entirely harmless) at both this basic level and at the other, deep-seeking end of the spectrum – and why.
02/03/2013 at 10:43
MH
Nothing you say or write on this subject is balanced – ever! Don’t worry Nigel I don’t expect to this appear as you always block my comments.
02/03/2013 at 11:16
Nigel S
“Nothing you say or write on this subject is balanced – ever! Don’t worry Nigel I don’t expect to this appear as you always block my comments.”
Well if anyone, be they an artefact hunter or archaeologist, posts a comment showing how screening Britain’s Secret Treasures Series 2 won’t result in a lot more unmitigated and unrecorded depletion of Britain’s archaeological record and therefore isn’t deeply damaging and irresponsible you may be sure we’ll publish it.
Silence, abuse or fibs about metal detectors not being able to find anything…. are less likely to be published here. That seems an awfully well-balanced approach to me.
02/03/2013 at 19:14
Boothy
Ah your articles are so sweet. Nigel, i know you hanker a secret desire to have a metal detector. you even admitted it
“I have a little dinky hand held one, issued by my employers. So weak it only detects things that are visible on the surface though
You can buy ones that are built into your shoe – how cool and would that be?! ”
Good to see hypocrisy is alive and well
. Question – What machine did you buy when you were in Regtons?
I just love your journal Nigel for it’s pettiness and sniping over the most petty of things just alienates yourselves further and further away from the mainstream. Even you and Barford constantly admit and get frustrated about the UK’s archaeological community not being ‘on board’ with your position on matters – is it any wonder why?. Keep up the good work Nigel, our hobby needs people like you to make us look moderate and reasoned against your background of extremism and pettiness. it’s all about contrasts you see…………..
02/03/2013 at 19:50
Nigel S
No rift with the UK’s archaeological community – I work on the consistent basis of opinion that people who artefact hunt without reporting everything, are selfish, damaging, ignorant, yobs. If you think a single archaeologist disagrees with one word of that you are mistaken.
02/03/2013 at 20:20
Boothy
And there you have it
“I work on the consistent basis of opinion”
The key word is ‘opinion’. Fact? NO, just an opinion. Your opinion,the opinion of one man, not that of a nationwide populous.
“people who artefact hunt without reporting everything, are selfish, damaging, ignorant, selfish yobs. If you think a single archaeologist disagrees with one word of that you are wrong.”
Hmmmmm, so let’s just stop and think for a minute. So according to you, EVERY archaeologist in the UK thinks that someone who doesn’t record EVERYTHING they find is a selfish, damaging, ignorant, selfish yob? (your words not mine). Oh dear, that’s not really the case is it Nigel? Why are hardly any (if any at all) Archaeologists involved with HA if you are the rally point of this opinion?. Surely you should be inundated with them wanting to follow behind you as head of the Heritage Crusade? In a perfect world, a world that will never happen, then we would record
, examine and log every little button, broken buckle or common as muck Elizabethan sixpence……….for what???. No, we live in a real world and reality is far from perfect but we get by and we manage the imperfection by focusing on what REALLY matters.
You see Nigel, your take on matters is at times quiet bizarre and whilst I am sure your intentions are noble, your application and perspective are very much that of someone who is a self serving propagandist. Take this example.
“That would suggest they alone are hoping to create 10,000 new metal detectorists in the next few months”.
No they are not. Maplins just want to sell as many of these budget metal detectors as possible. They care not whether they create a metal detectorist or another item gathering dust in the attic or adding to landfill.
Nigel, i’m sure you are a lovely decent man but please carry on with your opining because it does provide amusement and importantly, does act as the backdrop of extremist and impractical and irrational thought against which moderation and common sense flourishes, and for that we thank and applaud you.
P.S – Did you every get those metal detecting shoes you thought were ‘cool’?
02/03/2013 at 20:37
Nigel S
You are clearly under the impression that there are archaeologists who think people who artefact hunt without reporting everything are not selfish, damaging, ignorant yobs. There are seven thousand archaeologists. Name one who disagrees with me.
Better still (since you can’t) ….
The point of this article was to say that the screening of Britain’s Secret Treasures Series 2 will result in a lot more unmitigated and unrecorded depletion of Britain’s archaeological record yet the only reaction has been from 3 metal detectorists doing what metal detectorists do – pretending the evidence doesn’t exist and indulging in irrelevant attempts to discredit me, not the point being made. So please now note, only comments relevant to the article will get though.
02/03/2013 at 21:32
kpwhite
Your article says it all and yes archaeologists agree with you about these programmes. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/anger-as-tv-show-endorsesmetaldetecting-plunderers-2260814.html
02/03/2013 at 21:38
Nigel S
Thank you. Yes, and that press story was about the first series. The fact there’s a second one is extraordinary.
03/03/2013 at 05:37
heritageaction
Boothy, regarding your latest, no we aren’t going to publish it. As previously said, the sole point of this article was that the screening of Series 2 of these programmes will result in a lot more unmitigated and unrecorded depletion of Britain’s archaeological record and only comments relevant to that will get published. Long tangential attacks on us by artefact hunters using anonymous proxies are not only not relevant to the article but also a sure sign that our assertions about the programmes are well founded.
But that’s more than enough. Artefact hunters often complain that we are unwilling to “debate” with them and that this is undemocratic and a sign we have a weak case, but they completely misunderstand. This is a website dedicated to conservation for the benefit of the community, no way is it a soapbox for those who have shown by their actions they prefer self-interest over the communal interest. You have your own forums for that.
(BTW, to others: no anonymous proxies please.)
03/03/2013 at 07:30
Mike
Sorry Nigel. I was a bit silly to say you did not do any research. What I mean is meaningful research regarding the type of machine listed. Manufacturers always exaggerate their claims. Those machines were probably tested by manufacturers in perfect conditions. This is something that does not exist anywhere on the planet.
Anyway, Your comments in another post regarding those really deep seeking detectors were bang on in my opinion.
They do NOT have a place out in the field as they are very likely to encourage a detectorist to go well below plough soil.
Below plough depth and detecting on clean (truly recently unploughed) pasture land should not be done by just anyone who happens to have the cash for a machine.
So no I am not one of those detectorists who says all and any machines should be available.
I tend to hope to be more balanced in my views regarding it rather than I’m always right and you are always wrong.
03/03/2013 at 08:48
Nigel S
Well I did do “meaningful research regarding the type of machine listed”. Manufacturers may well do tests in optimum conditions and therefore make exaggerated claims but I know for certain this machine will find small items in normal conditions at 2 and 3 inches.
I’m glad you agree that detectors that work below all plough depths are damaging. There is no legitimate reason for detectorists to be using them and their use should be banned. It would be nice if thousands of detectorists would say so instead of about five. Where is the firm policy statement against them from “we love protecting history” UKDN and such bodies? Suppressed by their thoughtless wing, that’s where.
“Below plough depth and detecting on clean (truly recently unploughed) pasture land should not be done”.
Indeed. That’s what the official Code of Responsible Detecting says so it would be nice if both the NCMD and FID adopted that Code instead of their own decorative and inappropriate ones and ditto every detecting club (bar one).
03/03/2013 at 10:18
heritageaction
I’ve just read this on George Monbiot’s blog, about EDF chasing climate change protestors….
“It presents to the world the unedifying spectacle of the greedy pursuing the selfless, of the rich pursuing the poor, of world-wreckers pursuing the defenders of the environment. And no one with either heart or brains wants to be associated with that.”
I guess a lot of artefact hunters and their supporters are the equivalent of climate change deniers – and a lot of them certainly lack both heart and brains.
03/03/2013 at 16:52
Andy Francis
They should tax metal detectors and use the money to pay to mitigate the damage they create to the historical record. That is what any politician with any creativity would do.
03/03/2013 at 17:07
Andy Francis
Why not go further. License metal detecting (£40 year x 10,000 = £4,000,00) and tax metal detectors @ 20% ( £50 per £250 machine ) and use the money to fund the PAS or to carry out site research. The fact any shop can sell any metal detector to anyone, regardless, is an absolute travesty.
03/03/2013 at 17:19
heritageaction
“The fact any shop can sell any metal detector to anyone, regardless, is an absolute travesty.”
Of course it is.
03/03/2013 at 17:39
Andy Francis
Can anyone just walk into a shop and buy a hand gun?
Can anyone just walk into a shop and buy Heroin?
Can anyone just walk into a shop and buy a flick knife?
The answer is no to all the above because they can cause damage, so why should a metal detector be able to sold willy nilly. They even make metal detectors for and market them to children, especially at Xmas time which is outrageous.
Tax them or ban them outright and have a short amnesty period for people to hand them in to local police stations to be destroyed, just like we did with handguns.
03/03/2013 at 19:16
Ovy1423
Has anyone actualy written to maplins to ask them to stop? would be good to see their reply and take on things
03/03/2013 at 20:04
Paul Barford
” ban them outright and have a short amnesty period”
But Andy, not everyone with a metal detector is damaging archaeological sites. They are used by archaeologists, meteorite hunters, gold prospectors, beach detectorists and rally token hunters, not to mention builders , plumbers and security men. Simply banning the tool is not the solution, and nobody here is suggesting such a thing.
Why not set up a system to make sure that detector use is responsible, in accord with (real) best practice and not damaging? That is the route Britain chose 15 years ago, that the ad hoc system put in place to achieve that is not working in the way intended is obvious. Perhaps – since a voluntary system failed to achieve this – we need to find a new way to do it rather than just abandoning the idea. Yes, a light collector’s tax has been suggested in other contexts, with the money devoted to site protection – perhaps that is an avenue worth exploring in the UK context too.