by Nigel Swift
I’ve been “challenged” (by a rather thoughtful detectorist) to define “ethical metal detecting”. A short answer would be to say it doesn’t really exist except within a structured academic or rescue exercise as anything else may cause damage for avoidable reasons or with insufficient payback. I guess if others like PAS disagreed there’d be pictures on the net of them swinging detectors with the rest at commercial rallies, but there aren’t! But of course, the short answer’s neither here nor there as people are metal detecting so my definition of ethical detecting has to be tempered with reality. As Macbeth almost said: “If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done ethically!”
But then it hit me. There’s no definition of ethical metal detecting, anywhere. No metal detectorist, no supporter has come up with one and remarkably (considering its whole raison d’être) nor has PAS! All we have is the Code for Responsible Metal Detecting and you could hardly claim that isn’t a watered-down “best-we-can-hope-for” version of “ethical”. (Try reading it substituting “ethical” for “responsible”. It becomes gobbledygook.) If ethical is to do with maximum public benefit and minimum public damage then the Code can hardly be said to have much to do with ethicality at all. Which maybe explains exactly why PAS hasn’t defined ethical? To do so would be to emphasize how far from ethicality the Code actually is.
Still, there are some detectorists striving to be more ethical and it seems to me their standards ought to be codified as well, indeed more so than the contents of the Code. We need a Sermon on the Mount, not just a vague indication of what’s at the bottom of the spectrum of acceptability else how will the public know it is at the bottom or that there are people that manage to do a lot better? Shouldn’t those people be praised as elite so they can gain from their efforts? After all, their standards in some respects are not far from those of archaeologists. Landowners ought to be told about them. Just as all detectorists are sick of being confused with nighthawks so ethical detectorists must be sick of being confused with ordinary detectorists (even “responsible ones”).
Yet I fear they’ll wait forever, for reasons explained, so if they want things to change they’ll have to do it themselves. It wouldn’t be hard – a few people could simply say “Let’s form an association just for metal detectorists that behave very, very, well and see if we can reap some benefits and do some good!” Such people are out there, just an email away from setting themselves up, writing some rules and issuing badges. They nearly did it a few years ago (at my suggestion) but made the mistake of asking the rest for permission and heard: “Bad idea…. mustn’t split the hobby…. unity is strength.” Strength for who one might ask. It’s not hard to see who has been piggybacking on the good behaviour of others for many years. In truth ethicality is strength, not unity. Who would think of banning or restricting ethical detectorists? No-one! If detectorists were ever subject to regulation the last detectorists left in the fields would be the ethical ones, it’s a certainty.
Anyhow, here’s an outline for an Ethical Metal Detecting Association. Not an entirely ethical, minimal damage one, but a lot better than “responsible”. It will have a permanent place on the net in due course with a link from the Journal. Unlike the Code it’s not going to be watered down to suit the unwilling, or sent to the National Council for Metal Detecting for emasculation, it’s just going to sit there as a reminder of what’s right and a reproach to those that think “right” ought to be ditched in the face of bellicosity. Many detectorists (the ones who wouldn’t comply) will trot out a zillion reasons why it’s preposterous and unrealistic. Ethical detectorists will know otherwise. If any of them (the ethical ones not the ones that say that what ethical detectorists already do is actually impossible and unrealistic) care to comment please do. Alternatively if they would like to correspond with us in strict confidence or anonymously via info@heritageaction.org we’d be interested to hear their thoughts.
I guess the biggest protest this set of ideas will provoke will centre on the concept that there should be no finds sharing agreement. Both the bulk of detectorists and PAS (presumably) will disagree. As to the former, they’re easily repulsed – if you’re in it for love of history you can’t possibly complain. Can you? Unless you want to confess something? As for PAS, it actually recommends both sides to enter into an agreement (via the Code and via a Country Landowner’s leaflet) in order to “avoid disputes”. I really can’t see why…..
It seems rather like lazy thinking, slipping into the presumption that it is “legally right” to contract to share. On what legal basis would that be? Just because the State decided to offer a 50% finder’s reward for Treasure items that doesn’t mean private individuals are obliged to do the same with their property or to be told that a history lover (or indeed anyone else like a dog walker, bird watcher, farm worker or school child) that finds non-treasure items on their land has a legal claim to a particular percentage of them, whether 50%, 1% or 100%, and that such a claim should be acknowledged for “safety” reasons by being formalised contractually “in order to avoid disputes”. What disputes, pray? Legal ones? On what basis? I can’t think how. Or maybe some detectorists are thinking of possible disputes arising over the landowner saying “I won’t insult you by giving you a big reward as you’ve told me you’re only here for the love of history?” Or could PAS possibly mean disputes arising from a history-lover putting a find in his pocket because he hasn’t been given a guarrantee of a big fat contractual share in it’s value? Surely not? It must be some potential for some other dispute that both lots have forgotten to spell out.
It’s outrageous IMO that landowners should be officially misled into thinking a contract about sharing the finds is necessary or in their interest. Some of these agreements reserve 100% of all finds up to a value of £2,000 each find to the finder – in other words 100% of almost everything that is found. Central Searchers for one, http://www.centralsearchers.co.uk/ which deals with scores of landowners and thousands of detectorists per year. Look ’em up and click on their Rules. It’s number 15. Imagine, as a fieldwalker from an archaeology society – or a twitcher – waving that together with a twenty quid note at a farmer! Why would a farmer lay himself open to being persuaded to sign up to such ridiculous and blatantly unfair and exploitative terms when legally the items are his 100%, and if he wants to give a finder a reward (of however much he likes) or not then that’s up to him? “Oh well, we pay him twenty quid each to detect there.” And for that you think it’s fair to take 100% of almost everything you all find do you?! Well, maybe the poor farmer is stupid or, more likely, he’s been reading something from an official body, recommending him to enter into an agreement and from that got the idea that the nice plausible purely history-loving people at his door really would have a big legal right to almost all of his property if they found it so he’d better sign something drafted by them that reflected the probable legal situation since the experts (them and PAS) recommended it.
No. Finds agreements are not not necessary, not ethical, work entirely against the landowner, point to a love of money not history and are based upon a false premise.
Meanwhile, any ethical detectorists out there, courage mes braves! You have much to gain, all of it deserved – and nothing to lose but other people’s reputations!
.
Here it is! (Updated March 2015)
__________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
__________________________________________________________
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
13/11/2010 at 09:41
Lucy P
It’s a lovely concept but one that has so many flaws for public acceptance.
Ethical;
pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
As someone sitting in neither of the camps of Archeology or metal detecting but a mere member of the public, I find this whole debate and mud slinging from either side rather laughable. The public at large simply aren’t that interested in EITHER sides arguments nor do they care about what either hobby is digging up out of the ground.
For any side to try and claim that their cause is forged on an agenda about ‘ The Public interest’ is merely trying to garner some sort of moral highground mentality by being the champion of the people when in fact, it would appear that the people really aren’t bothered about the cause nor the champion.
I will continue to enjoy my interest in history but I won’t be losing any sleep over it as I know millions of others won’t.
13/11/2010 at 10:35
heritageaction
Hi Lucy, thanks for telling us you’re “someone sitting in neither of the camps of Archeology or metal detecting but a mere member of the public”.
Trouble is, we’ve been checking IP addresses for a couple of weeks and it turns out you’re not just posting as Lucy are you? You are also “Jennifer Grey”, “Bozwaldo “, “Maximus “, “Geoff”, “Harrison Matrixman”, Harris, “Gaynor”, “Chris” and “Liz” – a total of ten.
You have illustrated graphically, at just the right moment, the fundamental problem – that a metal detectorist can so easily claim he is one thing when actually he may have a totally different agenda. This is precisely why an Ethical Metal Detecting Association is needed – so that truly ethical metal detectorists can rid themselves of other people’s reputations once and for all.
14/11/2010 at 22:41
Fachtna McAvoy
I was the manager for English Heritage for a pioneering project carried out in Lincolnshire in the late 1990’s. A significant part of this project sought to quantify and present the damage caused by the removal of objects by illegal metal-detecting on one particular site and to use this site to develop and test techniques and methods to counter this damage.
Over the years of fieldwork on the project I worked alongside quite a few local metal-detectorists and was unfailingly impressed by their interest, enthusiasm and painstaking application to the work they carried out in difficult conditions.
From this background and perspective I would like to congratulate Heritage Action for the proposal to set up the Ethical Metal Detecting Association. I am sure that its aims and pledges will be welcomed by all who participate legally and responsibly in an activity which has added and can add so much to our knowledge and understanding of our past.
15/11/2010 at 13:19
Nigel
Many thanks Fachtna.
I certainly hope you are correct when you say that the aims and pledges of the Ethical Metal Detecting Association will “be welcomed by all who participate legally and responsibly” in the activity.
However, I would like to stress that being merely “legal” or “responsible” (as defined in the Code of Practice) would certainly not be sufficient for anyone to be compliant with the EMDA pledges – which are designed to go very much further towards maximising public benefit and minimising public injury – in other words towards truly ethical detecting. I hope that “legal” and “responsible as defined by the Code” can in future be seen against the yardstick of “Ethical” (as defined by the EMDA pledges). The difference IMO has remained obscure and unexpressed for far too long.
The pledges are now available as a permanent link on all Journal pages and directly here – http://www.ethicaldetecting.org.uk/
17/11/2010 at 17:21
George
Does this club actually exist or is it make believe?. I\’m not sure which it is.
17/11/2010 at 18:40
Nigel
It most certainly exists, as a genuine aspiration. It now has a forum for ethical detectorists and all who accept it as a proper template for ethical detecting to discuss it in detail.
http://www.ethicaldetecting.org.uk/
18/11/2010 at 17:55
Percy
Sounds like a good idea in theory but those terms are a bit cumbersome aren’t they? What would be classed as a recordable find?. This needs absolutely defining for this to have any meaning at all otherwise every bit of 19th century plough share would need recording as part of the UK agricultural Heritage.
Like all good ideas, great on paper but not so great in reality i’m afraid.
18/11/2010 at 19:00
Nigel
“a bit cumbersome aren’t they” – not in the least to those who already conduct themselves in that way without difficulty or complaint. You should bear in mind this is an association for ethical detectorists not people who are unwilling to maintain ethical standards so there’s really no problem whatsoever with the ten EMDA pledges.
……………………..
“What would be classed as a recordable find?. This needs absolutely defining for this to have any meaning” This has already been defined by PAS and is known to every detectorist. Except those that don’t report to PAS but they wouldn’t get into EMDA or want to of course.
……………………..
“Like all good ideas, great on paper but not so great in reality i’m afraid.”
That’s fine if that’s your view since EMDA is for ethical detectorists who do think it’s a good idea, no-one else.
18/11/2010 at 19:37
Iggypop
Have you got a link to the PAS definition of what is a recordable find?. Checked out their site and nothing on there that I can see
Cheers
18/11/2010 at 20:26
Nigel
You should get the specific answer about what they want to see from PAS not us, but in any event it is not relevant to EMDA since EMDA doesn’t postulate a change to what is shown to PAS it merely lays out a set of ethical behaviours.
19/11/2010 at 18:28
Oakridge
The PAS don’t tell people what they need to record, Heritage action doesn’t say what needs to be recorded and the Erosion counter does not say what should be recorded either. Someone must know surely. The counter cannot have any weight to the arguments put forward if is doesn’t clarify this basic information.
19/11/2010 at 18:54
Pat
Well Oakridge / Iggypop you appear to be yet another multiple-personality detectorist, yet again demonstrating that an association for truly trustworthy, honest detectorists is sorely needed. Thank you for your valuable and illustrative contribution.
https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/submission-guidance-for-articles-and-comments/
21/11/2010 at 15:10
Paul Barford
Percy and Iggy pop, Mr Iggy says he could not find a definition of what PAS want to record on their website. This is misleading. He obviously did not look at the “Get Involved: Frequently Asked Questions” section (http://finds.org.uk/getinvolved/faq):
“question 2: – What types of archaeological finds would you like to record? We would like to know about everything that you have found – not just metal objects. We record all objects made before about 1650. We may be selective in recording finds of later objects. It is often best to let the Finds Liaison Officer see all your finds, especially if you are unsure what they are: a nondescript lump of copper-alloy may turn out to be a fragment of an archaeologically important Bronze Age ingot.
3 – When I go metal-detecting I often pick up worked flints and pieces of pottery as well as metal objects. Would you like to see these as well?
Yes – because these are also important archaeologically.” So no modern plough shares just 300-year-plus old finds regardless of material.
24/11/2010 at 11:54
bob
So you’ve read the policy of PAS / NCMD / FID / UKDKD, changed the wording slightly and called yourself EMDA – Another classic from Heritage Action.
24/11/2010 at 13:16
Nigel
Well “Bob” I don’t think anyone that has actually read the policies of those four organisations will think for a moment that the EMDA pledges are in the least like them since they make reporting to PAS obligatory (which NCMD. FID and UKDFD don’t) and they make not selling finds obligatory (which NCMD. FID, UKDFD and PAS don’t).
So yes, it is certainly “another classic” from Heritage Action since, remarkably, EMDA is the only organisation in Britain publicly and clearly advocating genuine ethical detecting (a fact I take more than a little pride in and which hopefully will give pause for thought to a few ethical detectorists and quite a lot of archaeologists.)
For the avoidance of further doubt, here are the ten EMDA pledges: http://www.ethicaldetecting.org.uk/