By the end of today, 10th January, with the year hardly begun, our Artefact Erosion Counter will show almost 8,000 recordable archaeological artefacts having been removed already this year by artefact hunters with metal detectors from the fields of England and Wales. It is a conservative estimate and we believe there is reason to think it should actually be a lot higher. On the other hand, according to the Portable Antiquities Scheme a maximum of only 2,300 of those finds will have been reported to them (a large number with inadequate levels of detail).
It is easy to simply scoff and deny the figures are true, and thousands of metal detecting artefact hunters and the Portable Antiquities Scheme do exactly that without ever having offered a scintilla of explanation why. But unlike thousands of metal detecting artefact hunters and the Portable Antiquities Scheme we have taken the trouble to look at the available evidence and have based the Counter squarely upon that.
Here is the Counter, together with the evidence that underpins it and some reflections upon the issue. We think it speaks for itself – as do the denials.
__________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
__________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
15/01/2011 at 11:56
Kirsty
Out of interest, how accurate are the figures? I am currently researching this area and came across your site whilst Googling. Where did the raw data come from?. I would appreciate any information on this as it will help with my Thesis.
15/01/2011 at 18:37
Pat
Hi Kirsty, what is the title of your thesis?
17/01/2011 at 08:23
Pat
I guess we can conclude it was a PhBeep then.
20/01/2011 at 19:44
Bighit
What on earth is a phbeep??? thats a new one on me??
21/01/2011 at 05:30
Pat
It’s a metal detecting doctorate!
22/01/2011 at 14:13
Stratos12
They dont do doctorates in metal detecting do they?. I would be surprised if they did but it could be good if it was expanded to include other disciplines alongside it as part of a broader basis.
22/01/2011 at 15:14
Pat
Hardly, since they admit you can learn 99% of it in ten minutes.
If it was going to be a proper academic discipline it would need a big chunk of Ethics would it not, just like archaeology? Breath need not be held.
22/01/2011 at 16:00
Stratos12
Thats a bit glib. Surely it could be taught as an archaeological discipline? It might attract a new breed of archaeologist and expand our understanding through new methodology. Just a thought really.
22/01/2011 at 18:23
Pat
Archaeologists use metal detectors already as part of structured investigations but for everyone’s benefit, not their own. Its hard to see how random personal prospecting for recreation or profit fits into either archaeology or academia and failing to see how it could be is hardly glib. Don’t you think both of those spheres require a basic ethical approach that is almost entirely missing from metal detecting?
22/01/2011 at 18:39
Stratos12
Archaeologists use metal detectors already as part of structured investigations but for everyone’s benefit, not their own. Its hard to see how random personal prospecting for recreation or profit fits into either archaeology or academia and failing to see how it could be is hardly glib. Don’t you think both of those spheres require a basic ethical approach that is almost entirely missing from metal detecting?
**********************************************************
It was glib, as you make comment re the current situation and then use this judgement to colour the possible future as I proposed based on the current situation. It is like saying the night follows day therefore reaching the conclusion it will always be night as the day has now finished. If people could be professionaly trained, having studied the discipline and attained a degree then I was say that for these people to be randomly prospecting would be of a real benefit. Imagine all the new sites that could be discovered, excavated and recorded by qualified and trained metal detectors. It would be like doubling the number of archaeologists and that must be a good thing surely?
22/01/2011 at 18:52
Pat
But for it to be socially beneficial for metal detectorists to be professionally trained it would require them to act in a socially beneficial fashion – which thirteen years of public expenditure on trying to persuade them has largely failed to do. Professionalism is hardly worth striving for until ethicality is achieved.
If you want to apply a litmus test of whether metal detectorists are willling to act ethically ask them if they are willing to comply with these ten principles http://www.ethicaldetecting.org.uk/ – and watch them wriggle.