It seems that the metal detecting nest egg that Britain has incubated for the past decade is about to produce a chick that’s a lot bigger and uglier than PAS and others could have dreamed.
The “depth” at which hobby machines can find most small objects has been stuck at around 5 to 8 inches for decades and everyone assumed the technology was close to its optimum. But the Minelab Company has just launched the GPX5000 – which seems to be a major breakthrough. See this: http://www.detectorist.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=44967 and this: http://www.minelab.com/emea/consumer/success-stories/coin-relic-stories
There seems no doubt about it, the Minelab GPX5000 can easily find small objects at 18.5 inches!
[UPDATE 26 January 2012 : in fact, 24 inches – see latest testimony from the detectorist who was the original tester in Comments]
**********************************
But see this survey on the British Farming Forum, “What depth do you plough to?“
Not definitive of course, (like our Artefact Erosion Counter!) but almost three quarters of the 124 respondents say they plough in the 6-9 inch range, whereas the new machine detects objects at more than double the depth of the 9 inch plough soil and more than three times the depth of the six inch plough soil – in other words more than 9 inches and more than a foot respectively [Edit– more than fifteen inches and more than eighteen inches] into the undisturbed levels! In fact, in every one of those 124 cases it seems the GPX5000 could project well below the plough soil and far into any underlying and undisturbed archaeology – as could a spade of course.
**********************************
So what are the implications?
Well first, it seems likely an awful lot will be sold. Maximising depth has been an obsession for detectorists and a holy grail for manufacturers for forty years (see Google for proof of both) so the demand is there. Although presently expensive people are already talking of buying them on a shared basis and the history of all new technology is that the price tumbles once the new-product premium is removed, economies of scale are achieved and competition kicks in. In my view it’s not a case of whether large numbers get into the hands of detectorists but when.
Second, it seems that this machine and similar are going to be profound game-changers because metal detecting has hitherto been tolerated in Britain on the basis that (allegedly at least) it takes place in disturbed plough soil and above the archaeological layers and is therefore relatively harmless – whereas the new machines are set to render that whole claim invalid, and this time there’s no room for argument. Who could sensibly claim that detectorists will always (or even often) confine their digging to the top few inches when they are urgently being made aware there are good targets further down. To propose such a thing would be to suggest they aren’t human. PAS oughtn’t to imply otherwise.
Third, it surely follows that there is no realistic way that PAS can tell the public there is no problem with these machines being out in their fields. It just won’t wash to say that “because we have outreached to, liaised with, and partnered detectorists nearly all of them are now so responsible they would stop digging after a few inches.” Surely the “metal detecting debate” isn’t going to end up with PAS saying they truly believe most detectorists will practice the withdrawal method? I have news for Pope Roger: they won’t, in their thousands, and everyone knows it!
Fourth, the penny is starting to drop with some detectorists that their ability to find targets so far down is good for them but disastrous for the image of their hobby. Initial open exaltation has begun to be tempered (and moved into closed forum areas in some cases) as the realisation dawns that “We do no harm” would no longer be just a dubious claim it would be an unbelievable one that even their most loyal apologists couldn’t take seriously or transmit to the public and the government. So claims are being made about the machines being too expensive and too cumbersome and of limited interest. I beg to differ. I beg to suggest that the demand is high, that some of the criticisms are insincere and that any valid ones will be met and speedily rectified by the manufacturers, since that’s how commerce works. How about hundreds, perhaps a thousand, being swept over carefully researched areas of buried archaeology by this time next year? All perfectly legally, but followed by digging as deep and damaging as nighthawks do. Anyone want to bet against me?
**********************************
So what is to be done in the face of this real and present danger to the resource?
If logic and conservation mean anything at all the Code of Responsible Detecting and the Rally Guidelines should be amended to say such machines should not be used (no, not “voluntarily used responsibly” – not used! Like sub machine guns.) And PAS should say so on the front of their website and warn every landowner not to allow them. And DEFRA should forbid their use on land subject to stewardship schemes. And no public landowners should countenance them or private landowner be left unaware of them. Indeed, if logic means anything, the importation and use of powerful metal detectors should be licensed or prohibited by law not voluntary codes. MPs and Ministers love concrete figures and a quick demo by PAS of the miracles the new generation of machines can perform ought to convince them to ban them altogether. The argument makes itself so there shouldn’t be much difficulty: there would be no change of the status quo, just a denial of the ability of detectorists to intensify the current rate of erosion, so there’d be no valid grounds for them being angry at this curbing of their “rights” (other than frustrated greed) or being frightened on PAS’s part (other than habit). A very good test of exactly how many detectorists are truly “responsible” and how sincere our protection agencies are in their conservation aims!
But will any of it happen? Or will the archaeological establishment stay paralysed and under the detectorists’ thumbs, unable to react, as the reach of detectorists extends progressively into the archaeological layers, inch by inch?
One might think there was a bit of hope since as these machines threaten the resource they also threaten metal detecting. But trying to convince most metal detectorists that it is in their own interest to act in society’s interest is a mug’s game as I know only too well so I don’t expect many volunteers for depth-celibacy, and in the end it’s down to the authorities alone. The choice is clear, do something about it fast. Or don’t.
But rather than acknowledging that amateurs like me know owt, why not heed the words of an expert – Neil Jones, the highly experienced British detectorist who tested one for Minelab:
“It has awesome punching power and can detect to incredible depths. It just opens up a whole new level of detecting that other machines can’t touch, and that opens up lots of new ground when you think about it.” http://www.minelab.com/emea/consumer/success-stories/coin-relic-stories
Or Mr Brun:
“If you are going to get one of these machines make sure your able dig deap holes” (Sic) http://www.detectorist.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=44967
Or Gordon Heritage:
“It’s down to the bedrock!”
But the prize goes to “Turfaholic” for voicing what will happen:
“it’s the solution to the resource being hammered – “Interesting approach as todays finds become more rare at the 6 to 10 inch depth, this may open a whole new style to coin and releic hunting?” (Sic)
(The “solution”, nota bene, “to the resource being hammered”: This is a detectorist remember, confessing what the likes of us and Paul Barford say, and PAS won’t. What he is saying is that emptying the ploughsoil doesn’t matter as now they can get at the undisturbed archaeology below it!)
Or maybe I should claim a prize myself for offering a moral homily that is 13 years too late and yet might still be relevant in the future:
“Never plan a strategy on the basis technology won’t advance”
___________________________________
Update 31/10/10
NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THIS TOPIC: We have received a succession of comments on this, all from metal detectorists, all telling us these machines are useless and pose no threat. Since this is so much at odds with the initial reaction on detectorists’ forums (universal delight, and many saying they would buy them) it looks very much like the comments are not to be taken at face value so we don’t feel obliged to give them a platform here. Nevertheless, here are a few examples of what we have been asked to believe. The reader can decide for him or herself whether they add up to a pretty obvious attempt to unjustly allay public fears:
“I wouldn’t take too much notice of these GPX depth claims”
“I wouldn’t get in such a panic.”
Almost no-one will buy them as they’re too expensive
“most detectorists are elderly and unlikely to wish to exert themselves to a great degree”
the three people demonstrating the machine “are well known in the detecting community to be responsible” [yet they are advocating digging to 18.5 inches?!!]
“It’s not a brand new machine, just a revamp”
“it’s not set up as an artefact finder but for hunting for gold nuggets, therefore not really that suitable for UK detecting” [even though the Minelab official site says “Also great for the specialist relic and jewellery hunter who demands the best, and wants to recover targets deeper than ever before.” ?]
“The previous model never really sold ” [so Minelab have launched this improved version expecting that this too won’t sell well?!]
“people will get pretty sick of digging lots of junk at all sorts of depths”,
“it’s mainly sales hype so the people involved can receive free detectors & other perks from Minelab”
And best of all:
“they are pretty much useless for most archaeological sites in Britain.”
Well, we can all stop worrying then! Or perhaps not. Incidentally, since not a single detectorist has written to us saying other than that these machines are useless and no threat whatsoever then detectorists will have no objection to their use being officially condemned or prohibited. Will they? And if, perchance, it turns out they DO express objections (any of them) then all the more reason for doing so!
PAS, EH, CBA, MLA, DEFRA, CLA, NUF, ALGAO, IfA and DCMS kindly note!
__________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
__________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
36 comments
Comments feed for this article
31/10/2010 at 11:32
Bozwaldo
Alarming stuff indeed and not a trend I favour
31/10/2010 at 11:56
Harrismatrix Man
Surely, if these machines are that good then the archaeological community should be using them as part of thier equipment to help identify finds hots spots prior to excavation. Geofizz doesn’t alway give reliable data but finds scatters can. If these machines are really that good it’s time to examine current methodologies and learn and adapt.
31/10/2010 at 17:28
Maximus
Wow. That’s amazing that it can find things at that depth. And so small as well. Thanks for bringing this to your readers attention.
01/11/2010 at 09:42
Maximus
Do you have a link to where this machine is available from?
01/11/2010 at 10:09
Pat
http://www.szit3c.com/contact.htm
01/11/2010 at 17:31
Jennifer Grey
Sir
I see that you decided not to post my whole comment but to merely and selectively choose the ‘soundbites’ that most fit your agenda. Instead of balanced and reasonable discussion, you instead choose to be inflamatory in your editing to promote your own cause. Not only is this shameful on your part but it is self defeating.
I ask politely that you remove my edited comments or actually post the whole unedited comments of mine. Or alternatively, if you cease to do either then at least to post this comment so that your readers can see for themselves.
Jenny
01/11/2010 at 22:21
Nigel
Heritage Action used to have a moderated public forum but it had to be closed due to repeated flash mobbing by metal detectorists intent upon disruption. We have suffered the same problems since we have reverted to Comments and we had long decided we would not take any more nonsense from them and tend to edit them away pretty often. You may label it shameful but I assure you it leaves us more time to do things that are less tiresome and more productive and I can’t help observing that most detecting forums are secretive (despite whose heritage they are digging up) whereas we’re merely selective in whose comments we publish. So no comparison IMO.
Your contribution was one of many messages we got in the same few hours ALL ostensibly trying to convince us, but really the public, that detecting down to 18.5 inches was fine and dandy. It isn’t, and we don’t feel a need to help you run a campaign to tell the public that something that’s damaging isn’t. You can find other avenues than a conservation website to do that I am sure.
Anyhow, we’re thinking of allowing NO comments on MDing subjects (we are in private communication with some detectorists who have zero problems with what we say, have no need to feel concerned about anything we advocate and keep us up to date with what is happening in places we aren’t allowed). Asking for no contributions about metal detecting was what we first tried on our forum but it didn’t work so we’re not sure if our ultimate answer may be to close ALL our comments. We’ll see how things go for a while though.
02/11/2010 at 09:01
Harris Matrixman
I’m a firm believer that there are always 2 sides to every argument/discussion and that we should never take anything at face value but question both sides and use our own intelligence to to make informed decisions-one that normally encompasses elements of both sides. Moderation of obscene and rant like comments is fine but I for one would like to see what others say and feel on the topic and reflect on my own position from there. Either you should not post ANY comments or post ALL comments ( barring those that are obscene and/or unsuitable). To edit comments and use parts of them is not giving me the bigger picture and leaves me feeling sadly disengaged from the Heritage protection cause (one that I support but want to explore cerebaly)
02/11/2010 at 09:31
Nigel
“Either you should not post ANY comments or post ALL comments”
*******************************
Yes, we are rapidly coming to that conclusion ourselves with regard to metal detecting topics.
02/11/2010 at 16:11
Harris Matrixman
It has to be either ALL or NOTHING. I don’t want this journal to end up being the Daily Mail of the Heritage protection movement. I and others are wise enough to make our own minds up. We don’t need selective misrepresentation of facts and or comments from either side.
Professionaly, we bang on about context and how to fully understand something we need to understand it’s context and that by removing something carelessly, that person becomes (to use your own expression ) a ‘Knowledge thief’. Well lets see the comments in full and in context and don’t move towards becoming a parodoxical ‘knowledge thief’ by the act of pruning the branches to leave just the withered fruit on the discussion tree.
03/11/2010 at 07:47
Nigel
“It has to be either ALL or NOTHING.”
Yes, as I have just said we are rapidly coming to that conclusion.
03/11/2010 at 18:24
Geoff
Surely this machine is a good thing as it helps the archeologists to find more?
04/11/2010 at 04:36
Pat
Using it as part of a comprehensive archaeological investigation is one thing, using it to cherry pick random metallic items from their archaeological context is the opposite.
04/11/2010 at 17:07
Geoff
I would have thought that the things that archeologists find with metal detectors were things that people randomly lose somewhere at some time. I can’t see that there is any other way of finding these items. When I watch time team, they hardly seem to find any metal objects but lots of walls and bits of pottery so it would suggest that the random losses don’t really occur in the places where they dig a trench. It seems to make sense that the archeologists with metal detectors are finding things that would otherwise never be found.
04/11/2010 at 17:48
heritageaction
“When I watch time team, they hardly seem to find any metal objects but lots of walls and bits of pottery”
That is because they are involved in revealing the archaeological record as a whole not with cherry picking bits out of it.
04/11/2010 at 20:02
Geoff
But the simple fact is Time Team don’t seem to find many metal finds do they so therefore this tells me that there is nothing for them to ‘cherry pick’ (as you call it) anyway?. There don’t seem to be many cherries on the archaeological tree regardless. It seems that the archaeologists with the metal detectors seem to be the ones to find the cherries that randomly fell out of the cart.
04/11/2010 at 21:38
heritageaction
“But the simple fact is Time Team don’t seem to find many metal finds”
No, the simple fact is still that they are involved in revealing the archaeological record as a whole in a small area not with cherry picking just metallic artefacts to take home over a much larger area. Archaeology isn’t a race to see how many coins can be extracted in an outing.
05/11/2010 at 09:39
Harrismatrix man
We do find metallic objects during excavation but I will agree that they are very minimal in numbers. In fact, upon refelction, I can say that the the majority of digs don’t reveal any metallic objects at all. Most of our dating evidence comes from pottery sherds.
05/11/2010 at 10:30
heritageaction
Exactly.
May I ask what type of sites you mainly excavate? Which give most/least metallic objects?
05/11/2010 at 11:46
Peter Twinn
Time Team find plenty of detected finds and also use the detectorist to show them where finds are in their trenches so the diggers don’t miss anything. The rest is usually found on the spoil heap, but as Nigel says they’re a very small part of any archaeological investigation, though the finds do help support the dating of sites as much as the rest of the material culture would, like pottery.
Personally I’m pleased they don’t focus on detected finds in the main, if they did they’d have more than the odd nighthawk visiting these much publicised dig sites. A metal detector in this context should be seen as another geophysical tool.
As far as the technological developments of detectors on the whole, they’re heading for a bloody nightmare as far as I can see. The current top-end machines are more than capable of detecting finds beneath the plough-pan and the vast majority of detectorist would not walk away from a good signal that deep….in most cases they’ll think it’s potentially a hoard or some other target worth digging. There have been some nightmare videos on You Tube in recent years showing the frenzied hacking of finds that were clearly in context with little thought of getting an archaeologist in to excavate in a controlled manner. Some do, like Dave Crisp, who found the Frome hoard, but most can’t contain themselves.
these new machines, like the GPX5000, the Etrec and the Dues are already proving popular, not only due to their ease of use, but because detectorist are revisiting ‘worked out fields/sites’ that are providing the finds they missed the first time around!
For me the use of a metal detector comes hand in glove with the word responsible. That means adhering to the Code of Practise for Responsible Detecting, something I think that many know is there, but whether it’s followed by all is any-one’s guess……I know what I think. Metal detecting has changed an awful lot since the inception of the PAS, many do the right thing by what they find, but there is still a group of people who have and do the right thing by what they do in the field.
05/11/2010 at 14:41
Nigel
Peter, quite a relief to hear from a responsible detectorist. We’ve been called all sorts for not allowing lots of metal detectorists’ comments through but on this thread alone, we have “Harrismatrix man” implying he’s an archaeologist but giving three different versions of his name and having the same email address as both “Jennifer Grey” and “Geoff”, and the same IP address as both “Bozwaldo” and “Maximus”. It was stuff like that which closed the HA forum and I ask myself why anyone would go to the trouble. I answer myself below. Anyhow, he won’t be back so we can talk.
You and I are at one that the GPX5000 et al will lead to a bloody nightmare – for the resource and inevitably therefore for detectorists. In fact, the only groups that stand to gain (and only in the short term) are manufacturers, retailers, irresponsible commercial detectorists and illegal commercial detectorists and I have a feeling there’s a bit of a demonstrable correlation at least between those four groups and the enthusiastic noises being made. (Not a precise one, just a bit of a one says my lawyer!) Let’s not get biblical, but in the detecting world money really does seem to be at the root of most of the evil.
Then there’s you. A bit a-typical, doing archaeology at uni, committed to doing all the right things, poster boy of the hobby. 😉 And so that’s it, ten thousand detectorists saying they are just like Pater Twinn so there’s no problem and me saying most aren’t so there is.
So what happens next Peter? Well in my view just as the Code of Responsible Detecting provided a litmus test of who is responsible and who just says they are (remember how prior to it people with straight faces said 95% of detectorists were responsible?!) so the GPX5000 and others will provide an even clearer test. You really can’t buy or borrow or share machines with the potential to seek so far down and still maintain you are “responsible”. “You’re holding it, you’re obviously irresponsible” – not a very long conversation is it? And absolutely no room for denial. Thank you Minelab, masters of irony, for delivering clarity not just about what lies under the soil but what stands right above it!
Years ago, you might recall, I proposed an Institute of Responsible Detectorists. It was based on the proposition that there was a sizeable body of detectorists that would never co-operate so those that do should split from them for the sake of their own reputations and long-term survival. It got some support but then got rejected on the grounds unity was strength (we both know which lot thought they stood to gain from unity!) and because it was me that suggested it!
The idea ought to be re-visited in the light of the appearance of very deep detectors IMO. Members would not use the GPX5000 (obviously), would conform to the Code for Responsible Detecting and would generally act in a Peter Twinnish manner (since they all say they already do!) Entry would be open to all (i.e. current sinners could recant) and the advantages would be huge in terms of enhanced reputation and opportunity. Farmers and archaeology project managers would no longer have to say are you a responsible detectorist and be unsure about the answer they could simply say “where’s your Institute of Responsible Detectorists badge?” No badge no dig sounds OK doesn’t it? It wouldn’t even hurt to say no badge no license would it, although I think I can already hear moaning from Minelab, detector retailers, irresponsible commercial detectorists and illegal commercial detectorists all of whom would lose money. On the other hand, responsible metal detectorists would gain everything else. And the funny thing is, PAS would be unaffected, responsible detectorists would still report to them (and gain more land to do it more probably) and irresponsible ones wouldn’t, like they always haven’t, but would find less land not to do it on!) It just depends if the good guys are kidded they ought to stick with the others “for safety” I suppose. But I think the continued safety of a unified, GPX5000-wielding hobby will be increasingly uncertain, that’s the GPX5000 disadvantage!
17/11/2010 at 20:12
Prsutagus
If you believe all that hype about exstreme depths you will soon running out of puff digging
07/03/2011 at 20:08
jon david
whats the big problem, metal detectors have always been able to find items at 2ft depths , it just depends on their size,even a £50 pound cheep one from tandy ,years ago could find buried hoards as deep several feet, if these comments from the website are not a wind up,it just goes to show what a bunch of snobbish elietists,they are . In recent years the amount of significant finds made and RECORDED ,by detectorists has been enormous,while the arcies poke around and find a few pieces of pottery ,the detectorist nearby on the spoil heap,is finding artifact after artifact
08/03/2011 at 08:12
heritageaction
Two crucial omissions:
“whats the big problem, metal detectors have always been able to find items at 2ft depths , it just depends on their size, even a £50 pound cheep one from tandy ,years ago could find buried hoards as deep several feet”
You seem to have glossed over the crucial point: quite small objects can now be picked up at great depths, which wasn’t previously the case so there is a genuine cause for concern.
“In recent years the amount of significant finds made and RECORDED ,by detectorists has been enormous” doesn’t take account of the fact that according to PAS most detectorists don’t report what they find….
12/03/2011 at 14:05
tom
This whole thing apeares to be just an advertisment for the product. Probably does dot do anything any of the other near the top of the line ones do.Its a great gimmick to try and sell these machines though.Well done
12/03/2011 at 17:37
heritageaction
Would that it was just hype. Unfortunately a large number of detectorists without an axe to grind are confirming what is claimed.
25/01/2012 at 12:46
Neil Jones
Hello there, Neil Jones here aka slow_n_low, i can now get 24″ on the same small coins as i know the machine inside out and a lot lot deeper on the larger finds, but most finds are in the top ten inches, i detect responsibily and carefully and not on protectected sites.
The GPX is also much more sensitive than other machines so will pick up small finds in the top 6″ that other detectors will miss including the Etracs and Deus`s.
If you or any organisation wanted help on recovering metal objects from sites you are working on i would gladly give up my time.
Most of us responsible detectorists detect in locations where you would never do a dig or even think about doing a dig, and the only reason for you to go where we do is if we find enough in that area for you to warrant doing a dig so there you go.
This machine is not hype and does what it says on the tin, its a beast and i got nothing for testing it, just the pleasure of getting the chance to use one, i have nothing to do with Minelab and they wont even aknowledge me, for what reason i dont know, i had to buy mine.
After seeing the results how could i not. But like they say it is expensive so out of the mainstreams hands which will suit you.
I and thousands of others enjoy our HOBBY, most of us work hard and most people have a way of chilling out and escaping from the stresses of the real world, and for us its not football or angling or knitting etc its metal detecting, regards Neil.
25/01/2012 at 13:19
heritageaction
It was not us that suggested there was hype surrounding this machine, it was some of your fellow detectorists, anxious to say there was no problem with them. You have confirmed there is indeed a problem since if you say “I can now get 24″ on the same small coins…..and a lot lot deeper on the larger finds” yet a survey of plough depth suggested “three quarters of the 124 respondents say they plough in the 6-9 inch range” then you and your GPX are inarguably causing damage to archaeological deposits are you not?
That, alone, puts you entirely at odds with the Code of Responsible Detecting – so referring to yourself as a responsible detectorist, while no doubt sincerely meant, can’t be appropriate. Deep digging is incompatible with responsibility isn’t it? Since you refer to yourself as a responsible detectorist it would be appropriate for you to ask PAS if we are right about that and to proceed accordingly.
25/01/2012 at 22:42
Neil Jones
Im sorry but yet again the dreaded Drama queen syndrome comes to mind again.
1. You would never dig or think about digging where responsible detectorists go, ever.
2. if you or your colleages did go where we go then the reason you would be there is because we allerted you to the scene.
3. If i got a deep signal and noticed when digging to retrieve the find that it was of significane then i would stop and ring my local FLO who would carry on the rest of the retrieval.
4.The above is the only reason you would discover archaeological deposits where i dig, because i got a signal with my machine, im the reason for the new discovery being made.
A discovery that unless for people like me would never ever come to light, i dont call that bad for the heritage do you ?
5. I and the rest of my large group of hobbyists have nothing to fear or hide from the likes of scaremongering, you see it is us that are changing history and bringing new discoveries to light for our great nation.
I think that is a major problem for the ditractors of our hobby.
The green eyed monster, JEALOUSY, and knowing it doesnt cost the taxpayer ( US as in WE YOU ) a fortune to do it.
Or perhaps you would rather nothing came to light and it all be hidden for nobody to see, nothing much being discovered in Europe with there draconian rules is there.
We are here to stay so accept us and learn from us as modern archaeologists are, the old style are becoming a minority and a thorn in the flesh.
26/01/2012 at 04:34
heritageaction
You are mistaken to think we are archaeologists or jealous. You are also mistaken to think archaeologists would never think of digging where you dig, in fact you could scarcely be more wrong since 99.9% of archaeological investigations take place in advance of development, not where archaeologists choose.
Digging far below the plough soil into undisturbed levels, which you openly admit you do, is indubitably damaging and in clear defiance of the Code of Responsible Detecting. As such it is opposed by the Government, every archaeologist bar none, English Heritage, The Council for British Archaeology, PAS, The Society of Museum Archaeologists, The British Museum, The National Farmers Union and The Country Land and Business Association. You have zero support or excuse for what you do and should desist.
26/01/2012 at 18:59
C Richard
“Digging far below the plough soil into undisturbed levels, which you openly admit you do, is indubitably damaging and in clear defiance of the Code of Responsible Detecting. As such it is opposed by the Government, every archaeologist bar none, English Heritage, The Council for British Archaeology, PAS, The Society of Museum Archaeologists, The British Museum, The National Farmers Union and The Country Land and Business Association. You have zero support or excuse for what you do and should desist”
How do Time team get away with it then ?
26/01/2012 at 19:25
heritageaction
Time Team is certainly often cited as justification for mass artefact hunting but whatever criticisms can be made of the programme’s format it is essentially a search for knowledge not personal artefacts and is neither random, unstructured, secretive nor acquisitive nor does it involve thousands of people in hundreds of thousands of locations. It is hard to see how the two activities can be compared in terms of either nature or scale.
27/01/2012 at 19:39
Scott Ellis aka IRON MASK
???“Digging far below the plough soil into undisturbed levels, which you openly admit you do, is indubitably damaging and in clear defiance of the Code of Responsible Detecting.”??
I don’t get it. How can it be damaging if there is nothing there to damage?
Or at least if there is nothing there of value. This Neil fellow has said that if he starts to find something and it was of significance then he would stop and ring his local FLO who would carry on the rest of the retrieval. So what is being damaged? From some of the history changing significant finds that have been discovered in the UK, how many have been found and reported by someone of your profession?
1.Hallaton Helmet
2.Staffordshire Hoard
3.David Crisp,Roman coin hoard.
4.Viking Hoard
Just to name a few.
From what I have read, you don’t discover but you uncover and examine what someone else has discovered or stumbled upon and reported.
But no matter what, I am all for responsible detecting, be it with a Minelab GPX Monster or a useless Garrett Bounty Hunter. In the wrong hands these things could be just as bad as a dodgy archeologist. So long as man has walked the earth there have been dodgy among every hobby, trade or profession. Let’s work together and record history.
27/01/2012 at 19:48
Scott Ellis aka IRON MASK
And let me ask a question.
Do you think there are dodgy archeologists? Can you admit it?
I can admit that I think there are in fact many dodgy metal detectorists, probably just as many as there are dodgy archeologists. But on the other hand in both cases I am sure there are many many more responsible and professional detectorists and archeologists.
What do you all honestly think?
27/01/2012 at 20:35
Pat
“how can it be damaging”?
Pull the other one! Who could not know the answer to that?
This seems to have been one long exercise in trying to justify wrongdoing, so we’ll call a halt now. Except to remind everyone else that the Government, every archaeologist bar none, English Heritage, The Council for British Archaeology, PAS, The Society of Museum Archaeologists, The British Museum, The National Farmers Union, The Country Land and Business Association and indeed BOTH the national metal detecting organisations have signed a Code that says don’t detect below the ploughsoil. Thus, no detectorist has any business using a machine that goes miles deeper than that and it is to be hoped that landowners will take that on board.The manufacturers boast that the GPX 5000 has a “depth advantage” but what it means is that they enable vandalism.
21/03/2012 at 20:25
Alex Bagg
since 99.9% of archaeological investigations take place in advance of development, not where archaeologists choose.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well that’s interesting. So you are saying that Archaeologists,in fact ‘commercial Archaeologists’ who profit from archaeology are only discovering ‘archaeology’ when they do a prospective dig in advance of development?. So archaeologists don’t choose where to dig, but instead are forced to dig by commercial pressure? In that case, the whole Archaeology V Metal Detectorist arguments are in fact null and void since the twain shall never meet. In fact, it could be argued that a metal detecting find that was found prospectively, would never be found by the 1% of archaeologists NOT working in advance of development and equally importantly, whilst not all finds are declared to the PAS, the ones that are COULD in theory give rise to the need for an archaeological dig prior to development since Item X on the record at site Y, could, just could mean that there is archaeology there, hence the need to dig site Y. I know numerous developments where no archaeological dig was required since the archaeologists report said it was unlikely that there would be any archaeology, based on lack of any supporting evidence.
Hmmm, puts a whole new complexion on the argument.