6 years ago today we highlighted that “Minelab has just launched the GPX5000….it can easily find small objects at 24 inches” whereas a farming forum survey showed 80% of farmers plough no lower than 9 inches. So people with GPXs could now detect small objects 15 inches below most ploughsoil. But now things have got even worse. See this from Minelab’s website :
So you can now detect small items two feet below most ploughsoils! And nighthawks on the Staffordshire Hoard field (and they do exist – we’ve photographed their holes here and here) can detect small gold objects far lower than the machines used by the two archaeological surveys there. What shall we all do about that? Pretend technology hasn’t changed out of all recognition? For our part we’ve written to the Archaeology Forum yet again …..
.
To The Archaeology Forum taf@archaeologists.net
Dear Sirs,
You may recall we’ve previously written to you 4 times (see here and here and here) asking you to address the growing threat posed by the new deep seeking metal detectors such as the GPX 5000 and the Blisstool LTC64 V3 and you ignored us. The position has just got 40% worse with the advent of the GPZ 7000 (see our latest article – “Enhanced technology leaves remaining Staffordshire Hoard wide open to theft”). Any chance of you reacting?
As a minimum, we would have thought, the amendments to the detecting code currently being drafted ought to include a very clear statement that using a machine that detects lower than the ploughsoil is not responsible detecting.
Regards,
The Heritage Journal
.
.
__________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
22/10/2016 at 14:52
roygoutte
‘As a minimum, we would have thought, the amendments to the detecting code currently being drafted ought to include a very clear statement that using a machine that detects lower than the ploughsoil is not responsible detecting’.
As usual your article is aimed at the bad guys. What about the good guys that report all their findings, are they not responsible detectorists. Should they be penalised as well and prevented from possibly finding previously undiscovered artifacts of great historical value to us all?
22/10/2016 at 17:48
heritageaction
As usual you completely miss the point. The official code says don’t dig below the ploughsoil so suggesting an additional clause saying don’t use a machine that detects below the ploughsoil doesn’t penalise the “good guys” at all.
23/10/2016 at 09:18
roygoutte
Plough depth varies from around 10cm – 30cm as a rule of thumb but deep ploughing (not used much these days) can reach 50cm. Suggesting only using detectors that don’t penetrate below the ploughsoil (whatever it may be) with respect, won’t have any impact whatsoever on the villains as I would imagine most of them don’t belong to recognised clubs and do as they please. Remember that the metal detector code of practice is still voluntary as far as I am aware.
Personally I would work away on the beginners coming into this wonderful hobby and educate them more into the rights and absolute wrongs of detecting as I think it will more fruitful in the long term. Your continual and ongoing battle with the bad boys of detecting doesn’t appear to be having much impact, otherwise you wouldn’t have to keep repeating yourselves over and over until you no longer get replies from the likes of The Archaeology Forum as you have pointed out.
I’m on your side here but why not try a different approach by educating the young first and foremost and bigging up the good guys more. For the youngsters this seems to be a useful guide you may wish to use (with permission?) for a start.
http://www.thedetectorist.co.uk/metal-detecting/#Fields
Catch them while they’re young.
23/10/2016 at 10:07
heritageaction
Plough depth of 10 – 30 cm is 4 to 12 inches and the survey said that depth covers 97% of farmers, so you’ve made our point more powerfully than we did: – no-one, whether a villain or not, has any business using a machine that reaches down 30 inches.
So you also missed the point again. Our suggestion isn’t targeting “villains” it’s targeting any detectorist using those machines.
Your previous post also signaled you had no idea that detecting below the ploughsoil is unacceptable – and the existing Code warns against it, as you’d know if you’d read it. Your assertion that our suggestion penalised “good guys” showed the depth of your misunderstanding. Hopefully you and your colleagues will get that into your heads in future.
23/10/2016 at 10:28
Paul Barford
“Suggesting only using detectors that don’t penetrate below the ploughsoil (whatever it may be) with respect, won’t have any impact whatsoever on the villains”
This seems to be an example of that distortion of the issue, that all problems with collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record in the UK will be resolved merely by “dealing with the nighthawks”. That’s like saying all issues with wildlife habitat protection in an entire continent can be dealt with by dealing with the guys who go after rhinos with guns and saws.
I think this shows that we are still very far indeed from having any kind of proper discussion of what so-called “responsible artefact hunting” is, and just how much 20 years of PAS outreach has actually contributed to that process – nothing much at all I would say from the above if it is typical.
23/10/2016 at 10:30
roygoutte
As suspected you are not prepared to accept sensible advice when offered to you so I will offer no more. Misunderstanding is your problem, not mine.
23/10/2016 at 11:19
heritageaction
We have no problem with advice, but not from someone who thinks a Code which prohibits detecting below the ploughsoil is “penalising the good guys! !!!
23/10/2016 at 12:44
roygoutte
‘We have no problem with advice, but not from someone who thinks a Code which prohibits detecting below the ploughsoil is “penalising the good guys’!!!
Again you have twisted this to suit yourself. My point was obvious – the good guys will report and declare what they find beneath ploughsoil where the villains won’t – THAT is why it in unfair on them. Artifacts don’t just appear at ploughsoil level, they can be much deeper than that, so to limit the depth could prevent them from being discovered and more of our history and heritage lost unnecessarily. Try seeing the other side for a change!
You have a huge problem with taking advice if it doesn’t suit you. If you blatantly disregard my advice with regard to educating the young instead of continually banging on like you are at present – and have been for the past 10 years or whatever – then you will be doing the same for the next 10 years!
23/10/2016 at 13:09
heritageaction
“My point was obvious – the good guys will report and declare what they find beneath ploughsoil where the villains won’t – THAT is why it in unfair on them.”
No, you STILL don’t understand. The Code, the PAS and all archaeologists say DON’T excavate below the ploughsoil. So it’s unfair to NO-ONE to say don’t use a machine that detects below the ploughsoil. Enough already.
06/07/2019 at 15:25
heritageaction
Just read this, 3 years later. What a dunderhead to say “the good guys will report and declare what they find beneath ploughsoil”. That simply means they’ll report the archaeology they’ve ripped out of context”! Only a detectorist could misunderstand conservation and blatant knowledge theft so disastrously.