We are pleased to have received a response from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) to our recent question.
_______________________________________________________________
Question Posed:
“Has PAS ensured that every landowner is aware there are metal detectors disguised as walking sticks and a new generation of deep-seeking metal detectors that pose a potential threat to archaeology?”
Response by PAS:
“In response to your question dated 28th April 2011, Roger Bland has asked me to state:
Probes such as this have been on the market for several years. They are used to locate the precise location of a metal object within a block of soil once this has been located by the search head of a metal detector. We do not think contacting every landowner to alert them to existence of these devices is either necessary or practicable.”
Our response to the Response by PAS:
These are not “probes” they are metal detectors. The manufacturers refer to them as that and nothing else and promote them for use in scanning the ground and nothing else. There is in fact no confusion whatsoever about their intended or actual use. One does not require something “disguised as a walking stick” to use as a probe in conjunction with another metal detector. One does need something disguised as a walking stick in order to search in the way the manufacturers indicate – “in areas where you couldn’t with common detectors… without arousing public interest” and to “scan places you never could scan before”.
There can be no doubt these machines would be objects of desire for nighthawks (or to be precise in this case, dayhawks), people intent on detecting without anyone knowing. It follows that there is every reason to alert every landowner about them. To say that isn’t practical is unconvincing in view of PAS’s connections to other organisations and the farming press which could surely ensure a simple message could be very widely delivered in a matter of days. In addition, it is difficult to see how it can be said that it is not necessary in view of PAS’s support for the Nighthawking Report.
__________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
__________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
21/05/2011 at 21:37
Paul Barford
Look how the second element of the question was simply ignored. The PAS totally ignored the bit of the question which asked for its position on “a new generation of deep-seeking metal detectors that pose a potential threat to archaeology?” (I would not have used the word “potential”, they DO pose a threat to buried archaeology). That is just a total cop-out.
22/05/2011 at 07:27
Nigel
I think it’s more serious than a mere cop out Paul. it’s an unsustainable stance and PAS really ought to amend it for it’s own sake.
Imagine the feelings of a farmer dayhawked by someone with a disguised detector – or who finds that the detectorist he gave permission to on the grounds he kept to best practice as laid out by PAS and was on first name terms with the FLO has been digging to 22 inches thanks to his site-wrecking machine – when he realises PAS knew all about these dangers and didn’t warn anyone as they were frit of offending detectorists! Wouldn’t he be saying “And why weren’t all of us farmers told? Was it because the FLO was working for the advantage of the detectorist – who has turned out to be an archaeological vandal? Are we owed less than such people? I wonder which group, landowners or detectorists, pays more tax to sustain this whole system and pay the wages of the FLOs?!”
If he gets angry enough and looks at PAS’s (latest) version of it’s aims he’ll see them keeping schtum conflicts with most of them
Aims of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (revised, 2008)
The Portable Antiquities Scheme is a partnership project which records archaeological objects found by the public in order to advance our understanding of the past.
In order to do this, the Scheme:
• promotes the maximum public interest and benefit from the recovery, recording and research of portable antiquities
• promotes best practice by finders/landowners and archaeologists/museums in the discovery, recording and conservation of finds made by the public
• in partnership with museums and others, raises awareness among the public, including young people, of the educational value of recording archaeological finds in their context and facilitate research in them
• creates partnerships between finders and museums/archaeologists to increase participation in archaeology and advance our understanding of the past
• supports the Treasure Act, and increase opportunities for museums to acquire archaeological finds for public benefit
If I was that farmer I’d then be thinking it looked very like a case of maladministration and worth taking to the ombudsman. It would serve them right.
27/05/2011 at 21:08
Greg
RE – ““Has PAS ensured that every landowner is aware there are metal detectors disguised as walking sticks and a new generation of deep-seeking metal detectors that pose a potential threat to archaeology?”
Have you considered the cost and logisitics of such an operation?. I’m sure that your typical farmer is already inundated with DEFRA and other regulation and would therefore see this is yet more nanny state gone mad type of activity. I would not want my hard earned money spent on such things when there are other areas of society so needing of money.
Conservation yes, but please let us be sensible about it.
28/05/2011 at 03:36
heritageaction
“Have you considered the cost and logisitics of such an operation?”
Yes. Articles in the farming press and on the PAS, EH, DCMS and DEFRA website front pages would involve the expenditure of approximately no money or effort.
“Conservation yes, but please let us be sensible about it.”
If you are in favour of conservation you can hardly be against asking farmers not to allow metal detectorists to use machines that will reach far below the plough soil and into undisturbed archaeological layers!
28/05/2011 at 19:38
Greg
Your question mentioned “EVERY LANDOWNER is aware”, indicating not just farmers and was worded to indicate a very pro active and direct targeting of information. I can’t really see that the average farmer is going to be looking at the PAS & EH websites on a regular basis or even the DEFRA website for that matter. More to the point, the average farmer I very much doubt gives a hoot about cultural heritage, hence the unfortunate proliferation of people metal detecting on their land in the first place.
Out of interest I just checked the DEFRA website as I typed this and the ‘alert’s are all based around agricultural issues, as one would expect.
As for undisturbed archaeological layers, have you seen the type of machinery that modern agricultural is using these days, including the ‘pan buster’, a machine that rips up the soil pan up to 24 inches below the surface to allow better drainage and root aeration.
Would it not be better for archaeologists to actually get out on the farmers land en masse and ASAP and survey/dig as much as they can before the modern world swallows up and spits out the cultural heritage beneath our feet?
28/05/2011 at 21:11
heritageaction
“Your question mentioned “EVERY LANDOWNER is aware”, indicating not just farmers and was worded to indicate a very pro active and direct targeting of information.”
Quite. If millions of pounds are spent on “a very pro active and direct targeting of information” towards detectorists then some of it should certainly be used for “a very pro active and direct targeting of information” towards farmers. That is a matter of both common sense and common justice.
In addition of course, for DEFRA to pay farmers to protect archaeology but not to tell them the payments will stop if they let ignorami with deep seeking machines on their land makes no sense at all. We trust that will be actioned very soon and are confident you would wholeheartedly support it.
28/05/2011 at 21:26
Greg
I note you omiited to comment on my last paragraph. The conservation argument is now becoming a circular one and will never be addresses with the ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ type of mentality. I fully support the conservation of the archaeological record BUT, and it is a big BUT, this has to be balanced with the simple fact that the rate of degredation of the natural and archaelogical environment is on a parabolic curve and within this degredation archaeology is being lost in so many ways and probably in ways that are more insidious and damaging than metal detecting.
When are the archaelogical community going to get off thier muddy backsides and actually start to survey on a much larger scale rather than getting bogged down in the detail and personal gratifcation of small scale digs that frankly can be left for the time being. Is such large scale surveying was carried out then we would be dealing with known facts re conservation of knewly known sites and thus, conservation energy and finances could be targetted directly to these important areas.
The current state of play is one of trying to apply a desperately thin veneer of conservation across the whole of the UK’s farmland rather than spread a rich and deep gloss where it matters. Currently, those outside of the archaeological conservation movement view those that support conservation us as meddlers and loonies and therefore we gain few supporters outside of the core movement.
Time for a rethink of strategy of how best to slow this degredation and save what we can.
29/05/2011 at 06:57
heritageaction
“Currently, those outside of the archaeological conservation movement view those that support conservation us as meddlers and loonies”
So as a person inside the archaeological conservation movement are you agreeing with our article that we should do all we can to ensure people with deep seeking metal detectors aren’t allowed on the fields or not?
29/05/2011 at 10:32
Greg
So as a person inside the archaeological conservation movement are you agreeing with our article that we should do all we can to ensure people with deep seeking metal detectors aren’t allowed on the fields or not?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Such a simplistic thinly veneered question deserves an equally simplistic answer and that is yes. On an equal basis I would also like to see the cracks in my high street pavement filled in.
It is a case of fiddling whilst Rome burns………..
29/05/2011 at 10:47
heritageaction
“Such a simplistic thinly veneered question deserves an equally simplistic answer and that is yes.”
Jolly good, that’s one small step for conservation then. How about step two mentioned in our article: do you agree that we should do all we can to ensure people with detectors disguised as walking sticks aren’t allowed on the fields?
29/05/2011 at 18:52
Greg
How about step two mentioned in our article: do you agree that we should do all we can to ensure people with detectors disguised as walking sticks aren’t allowed on the fields?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I’m just having this amusing vision of hordes of Ramblers being berated for using walking sticks on farmland!
I suppose a starting point would be to see how prolific these walking stick metal detectors are in the UK and how much frenetic and febrile discussion is taking place on the Tekkie Forums.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADSA_enGB367&q=walking+stick+metal+detectors&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=&oq=
Well, all I can see on Google is the manufacturers blurb, followed ironically by articles by this very Journal and not a lot else afterwards. Hardly the febrile discussions of the barbarian hordes!
If we are getting worried about gimmicks/toys such as walking stick metal detectors I think we should also show concern about the sale of metal detecting sandals as well………
http://www.gadgetgrotto.com/gifts-gadgets-c112/fun-games-c16/outdoor-toys-c30/treasure-seeker-metal-detector-shoes-p111217?utm_source=froogle&utm_medium=ppc&utm_term=111336&utm_campaign=froogle#111336
So, coming back to your question ” do you agree that we should do all we can to ensure people with detectors disguised as walking sticks aren’t allowed on the fields”. I think the giveaway to this supposedly cunning gadgets use might be the large shovel that would have to accompany such a gadget and the sight of an apparent Rambler bending down and digging for all he/she is worth with said shovel. Likewise, the waving of the stick back and forth would be yet another giveaway that the supposed Rambler is up to no good. The same giveaways would apply if someone were using metal detecting sandals. Seeing that neither of these wonderfully nefarious toys/gadgets seem be setting the artefact-hunting world alight I think I can sleep safe on this one and worry about more immediate and pertinent threats to our archaeological record.
I shall finish with and stand by a comment of mine from earlier – “Conservation yes, but please let us be sensible about it.”
29/05/2011 at 21:25
Pat
“I shall finish….”
Phew!
Beep beep then!
😉
http://www.ethicaldetecting.org.uk/
30/05/2011 at 11:36
Nigel
I really don’t know why they bother Pat.
It was the call for “large scale surveying” that blew the cover!
30/01/2013 at 11:59
Dr Dan H.
What I believe you’re thinking of is a machine made by a company called OKM, sold as a metal detector disguised as a walking stick. If you look on the company’s website, you will see a whole cornucopia of other devices such as long-range detectors and all manner of wizardry, all with one thing in common:
None of this junk actually works.
If you want to have something to worry about, think of the ex-military EBEX mine detectors. These are currently being flogged off on Ebay in small numbers, as they aren’t as good as the new Vallon mine detectors. However, an EBEX machine is small, easily concealed and is painted a nice covert dark green.
It is however a pulse-induction machine, as are most mine detectors. It is easy to tell when a PI-machine user has been on land; lots of deep, deep holes and a pile of old horseshoes, bits of machinery and clinker by the field gate; PI machines really, really love deep iron.
Of somewhat more concern might be someone trespassing with a decent C-Scope or Viking machine. These are much better, have decent discrimination so not as much iron gets dug up, and are really quite cheap to buy so a dedicated nighthawk won’t fuss too much about having the odd one confiscated.
30/01/2013 at 12:18
heritageaction
Thank you for that.
Yes, we quite understand the walking stick machine doesn’t work very well, but the fact it works at all and could be used on a Scheduled Monument or archaeological excavation is concerning.
We have come across the EBEX machines (put EBEX in our search box). Again, they’re not as big a problem in our view as the deep seeking ones and the high discrimination models, mostly Minelab – those really are a disaster and a nighthawk’s delight (as the EBEX links and others make clear).