You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Metal detecting’ category.
China is to ban ivory trading! It’s a huge step towards the end of elephant poaching. But it’s more – it’s an endorsement of Lord Renfrew’s mantra: “collectors are the real looters” and a recognition that demand and supply are the same force. Most people accept that but those with vested interests in denying it do so. Thus, US antiquities dealer Dave Welsh says the Renfrew hypothesis is “an unproven assumption“. Well, it won’t be soon for in three years Earth will have loads more elephants, thereby demonstrating Renfrew was right.
Of course, that begs the British question: how come that in his own country Renfrew’s rule is acknowledged to apply to elephants but not to recordable artefacts? Why is it legal in Britain to acquire or sell recently dug-up but unreported antiquities when everyone except those with a vested interest can see it damages the common interest?
In a “hobby” replete with falsehoods it’s the commonest of all: “I can’t report the finds as my farmer won’t let me“. On that basis, millions of artefacts, whole swathes of knowledge, are lost to science and history.
But actually detectorists can’t pin it on farmers, for they are all well aware of PAS’s simple advice: if you can’t report, don’t detect. Here’s the latest case of blaming farmers: an NCMD official on Twitter (he of the “I’m a Detecting Liaison Officer” and “it’s best to lie to French farmers” fame):
No Mr Maloney, it’s not the farmer’s call. It’s the call of the thousands of your colleagues who persist in detecting when they’ve been told they can’t report. Shame the FLO didn’t correct you on behalf of farmers but PAS has been putting your interests above those of landowners for 20 long years so it was never going to happen, was it?
(Mind you, saying “they rarely give me findspots” is a blinding flash of honesty against a background of PAS misinformation. What’s the betting she’ll get a private message saying please never again tell the truth in public?)
Treasure has been found at Barlaston, Staffs. But Councillor Follows of Stoke-on-Trent City Council didn’t get it about conservation saying “It is a real credit to the finder for treating the discovery so responsibly and reporting it correctly”
But in fact the finder was legally obliged to report it. Who but detectorists get praised for obeying the law? Not you, dear Reader, or me – else we’d need choirs of angels singing our praises full time!) As for him acting responsibly, he didn’t. He flouted reponsible behaviour in multiple ways, dug down more than a meter, and totally destroyed the historical context. Worst of all, he dug it out himself because, diddums, archaeologists hadn’t arrived for an hour and a half. If that’s not irresponsible, selfish and ignorant goodness knows what is.
But let’s not blame the Councillor. The blame lies with PAS for not outreaching to him and the whole country about how detectorists ought to behave.
PS, a small glimmer of hope though: the PAS officer urged the finder to waive some of his fee to help the musum exhibit it. That’s the first time PAS has had the testicular fortitude to say that. Let’s hope they’ll now do it routinely. Let’s also hope the Treasure Committee slashes the reward in token of the detectorist’s behaviour. It’s high time this dreary succession of “I dug it up myself” incidents was stopped in its tracks.
Some say we should highlight the good in unregulated metal detecting, not just the bad. We’d love to, but we live in a reality which PAS and many others ignore: the good is far outweighed by the bad and praising the activity year after year aids and abets the bad.
Why? Because in our reality 99.99% of the fields of England and Wales aren’t scheduled so if anyone can persuade a landowner to let them do so they can dig into them randomly, selectively, repeatedly, singly or in large numbers (increasingly “for charity”) and keep whatever they find.
Abroad that’s regarded as looting, in the sense it’s a crime against society. Because it is. Why then should we rejoice about the process or jubilate that PAS gets to see 30% of the finds? The countryside is our national encyclopaedia and PAS, to bolster it’s own existence, isn’t warning landowners loud and clear that hundreds of pages are being ripped out every day.
This week a bloke with a plastic halo and a large finds bag asked if I’d host a detecting rally “for charity”. I pointed out that he wasn’t the first and that every other detecting rally is now pitched to landowners and local communities as “for charity”, clearly to increase the likelihood that people would allow them to be held. But the truth is, although a footling entrance fee goes to the charities, they don’t get a molecule of what is found so it’s actually acquisitiveness dressed as altruism and I told him to clear off with his “for the love of history and charity” claptrap..
Scandalously, neither the Government nor PAS say a word about these charity rallies (and PAS even attends them!) Here’s what they ought to be saying out loud, if they were honest and acting like the rest of the world, something the Journal said back in 2011 ….
“If communities are dead set on allowing the digging up of their local archaeological record to raise charity money (and they shouldn’t be – let them ask PAS or any archaeologist in private what they think) they’d be vastly better off hiring a few detecting machines for their local amateur archaeology society to do it (although their ethics would hopefully preclude it).
That way, 100% of any government Treasure rewards could go to the charity, 100% of all the other finds could go to the charity and 100% of the finds would be willingly and accurately reported to PAS (making the exercise less damaging than any metal detecting rally in history!“
by Alan Simkins
“Can Detectorists be Archaeologists?” You’d think the answer would be a simple “Yes, assuming they adopt the habits and ethics of professional archaeologists“. After all, every year thousands of people do exactly that, getting involved in the many community digs organised around the country by archaeologists and local societies.
However, given that in the past some of my colleagues have been intimidated and threatened by some in the metal detecting community (to the point that police have been involved on more than one occasion), it was with some trepidation that I attended this year’s Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) conference on the above theme earlier this week at the Museum of London (MoL). As it happened, I needn’t have worried as the conference was very much preaching to the converted as far as the audience was concerned. And despite our stance here on the Heritage Journal, I tried to approach the event with an open mind, being neither a detectorist nor qualified archaeologist.
As the start time approached, I estimated that the Weston Theatre was about half full, so around 100 or people present with a good mix of ages but fewer people than I would have expected. Roy Stephenson from the MoL opened the day with the statement “Detectorists are de facto, archaeologists”, which set the tone for most of the day.
Michael Lewis from the PAS then outlined the work being done to kick off similar recording schemes in Flanders, the Netherlands and Denmark in order to combine datasets, and an interesting slide showed examples of similar finds from the four areas.
The other morning sessions were, as expected, full of praise for the work that recording detectorists do, with specific examples from a couple of detectorists as to the lengths they go to in order to meticulously record findspots and analyse the resulting data:
Felicity Winkley told us about her survey of Detectorists, and how she accompanied a dozen or so into the field for extended interviews, looking at their motivations and relationships to their local landscapes. Local knowledge was a major factor in deciding where to detect, and much was made of a comparison between detectorist’s research methods with Archaeological `desk-based’ research techniques, including gridding a potential site to ensure full coverage. Interestingly but unsurprisingly, of those interviewed only a third admitted to actually recording their finds with the PAS.
Dr Phil Harding (no, not that one!) then related his 25 years of detecting in Leicestershire, resulting in over 2000 finds. Due to the volume of his backlog, which the FLO could not cope with, he decided to become a self-recorder, and attended a photography course to improve his records. He then explained how finds scatter analysis could indicate the growth of a settlement, but despite his research and analysis many questions remain unanswered.
Dave Haldenby highlighted his collaborative work with archaeologists which has led to several published articles, once again based upon accurate findspot recording at Cottam B in Yorkshire, a site which traversed the Middle Saxon and Viking periods.
And finally before lunch, Lindsey Bedford described her path from detectorist to archaeologist which led to a degree from Bristol University and told us about her work with the Berkshire Archaeology Research Group (BARG).
The afternoon session opened with Faye Minter from Suffolk saying how working with detectorists using a (systematic) survey technique at Rendlesham produced results. An effort of some 174 man days detecting over a few years over 4 years, resulted in each detectorist finding an average of 3 recordable items per day.
From over 100,000 finds in total on the site, only around 4000 were pre-1650 metallic artefacts. In total, 27% of the finds at Rendlesham were Anglo-Saxon, compared with just 5% across Suffolk as a whole (I can’t help wondering if this is due to under-reporting elsewhere). We were then told about a site at Exning, where use of detectors could potentially have helped identify Anglo-Saxon graves which were otherwise only found accidentally during trenching, having not been spotted on the geophysics results.
As a result of these findings, Suffolk have now amended their requirements in archaeological briefs, specifying that only experienced/known/published detectorists should be used when surveying sites for development.
This point was raised again by Carl Chapness, who admitted that commercial units often only have access to the cheapest detectors, and very little training or experience in their use, mainly due to being commercially driven. Which lead to him raising a counter-question for the conference: “should archaeologists be detectorists?” There was some discussion of night-hawking and the lengths which commercial units sometimes have to go to in order to protect a site under investigation, and Carl suggested that cross-fertilisation of skills and knowledge between detectorists and archaeologists can only be a good thing.
Samantha Rowe then explained her work looking at the archaeology of the plough zone – examining lead bullets from civil war sites and comparing the erosion against the land use, concluding that over cultivation can exacerbate erosion of metallic objects (a real NSS moment there!)
John Maloney from the NCMD then spoke on the ‘Future of Archaeology and Metal Detecting’
I have to say he came over as an unpleasantly smug Trump-like bully – someone who is used to getting his own way and seeing no possible reason for that status quo to change. He started his talk by disparaging the efforts of the likes of David Gill and Paul Barford to debate some of the issues behind artefact collecting, and implied that figures used by critics of the hobby (such as those used by the Artefact Erosion Counter) have no substance in fact (as we know, the counter is based upon figures supplied by the NCMD, CBA et al). I suspect he came away from the conference very pleased with the cap-doffing shown to the metal detecting fraternity during the talks throughout the day. Very much a ‘you couldn’t do it without us’ attitude which was not pleasant to see. When questioned, he declined to tell the conference how many members the NCMD has, but someone in the audience proffered a figure of 11000 members. John said there had been no analysis done regarding ‘active’ members, but that it was thought there was a degree of ‘churn’ in the figures as people tended to buy detectors, join the NCMD, then get disenchanted when they don’t find anything, and fail to renew.
Thankfully, Mike Heyworth from the CBA, speaking on the same subject brought some common sense to the debate, saying that in the end a metal detector is just a tool that used in the right hands can be a boon to archaeology (as some of the talks highlighted). However, if the person using it has the wrong motives, or lacks the necessary archaeological skills and knowledge then no good can come of its use. “People using a detector as a tool to study the past in a responsible manner are archaeologists”
He is very interested in pushing for a redefinition of ‘treasure’, and a potential system of abatement of rewards to pay for conservation and preservation of finds, with additional penalties if the finds have not been uncovered in a responsible manner (I’m guessing Lenborough would have qualified for such an abatement). Sadly such a change would be dependent upon an overdue review of the Treasure Act, which the DCMS are dragging their heels over. However, the much vaunted ‘Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting’ is undergoing review for a second edition. This will very much be a case of ‘evolution rather than revolution’.
So what did I make of the day overall? As I said at the start, it was very much preaching to the converted – everyone there had a vested interest in building bridges between the two camps. Sadly, those who could learn most from the day were the very people who would not attend – the ‘Barry Thugwits’ and first-time detectorists of this world.
I would have liked to have seen some of the talks recorded, and made available to metal detectorist clubs so that the message of how the two sides can and should work together can be more widely spread.
Next year’s conference will be held in York, and will cover the subject of ‘Treasure’ (in all its forms, apparently).
I left the conference with the same thought that I had before I arrived (and indeed the conference strengthened my feelings): Of course detectorists can be archaeologists, providing they do it for public benefit and in accordance with archaeological methods and morals and they don’t pocket the stuff for themselves. Set against the selfless benefits which thousands of amateur archaeologists quietly deliver in exactly that way, cheerleading for artefact hunting looks bizarre, to put it mildly. PAS could have saved their money and breath, cancelled the conference and announced a replacement one titled: “Hurrah for amateur archaeologists!”
PAS’s mandate extends only to England and Wales yet it now cheerleading for the British system to be adopted elsewhere. For example: 1.) A film praising the PAS by Irish detectorists campaigning to legalise detecting in Ireland was narrated by someone sounding remarkably like PAS’s Dan Pett. [Mr Pett has now told us: “that video is nothing to do with me. I left PAS in May 2015“. We apologise to him.] 2.) PAS’s Dr Michael Lewis spoke at the inaugural meeting of the European Council for Metal Detecting (an organisation devoted to exporting the British system throughout Europe), where his contribution was hailed as “outstanding”. 3.) And now, (see The Searcher Magazine) we have PAS attending a public debate aimed at persuading Ireland to change its laws ….
Why? Why is PAS promoting the British system abroad, despite having no mandate or funding or visible incentive to do so? Why are the French, Germans, Dutch, Spanish, Poles, Italians, Swedish and Irish being lobbied by a small British quango with an entirely parochial vested interest in praising artefact hunting at home? Why is it commending to others a system which is supported by detectorists in Britain only 30% of the time at best? Why on earth has PAS become part of a campaign run by detectorists to persuade two dozen sovereign European countries to rip up their laws on metal detecting?
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
The Heritage Journal
This week CBA Director Mike Heyworth chaired a meeting “to agree a revised metal detecting code”. Good. We farmers need a “Tesco clause” saying “show everything you intend to take home and get a receipt for it” (like millions of Tesco customers, including all detectorists, do all the time.) Which honest detectorist would object to that? And how could archaeologists oppose it (given that it would stop PAS’s database being infected with nighthawked items and/or false findspots).
So the new code will be a litmus test of who controls Britain’s buried heritage, professionals or the rough wing of detecting. If a Tesco-like clause is inserted it will be a step towards resource and landowner protection whereas if the code is emasculated, as happened to the original one, then the pressure from dishonest detectorists will have prevailed. Over the years there have been 15 “recording strikes” threatened when reforms were proposed. Soon we’ll know if a sixteenth (and there will be one – just watch!) has succeeded or not.
In case you doubt it, here are the previous fifteen:
“Don’t criticise us or we’ll stop reporting”,
“Don’t tell us what to do or we’ll stop reporting”,
“Don’t undertake surveys of nighthawking else we’ll stop reporting”,
“Don’t let PAS dominate us else we’ll stop reporting” (and later: “
“Don’t reduce PAS’s funding else we’ll stop reporting”),
“Don’t impose a Code of Responsible Detecting else we’ll stop reporting”,
“Don’t discuss licensing us else we’ll stop reporting”,
“Don’t ban inappropriate rallies else we’ll stop reporting”,
“Don’t impose restrictions under stewardship schemes else we’ll stop reporting”,
“Don’t tighten up EBay else we’ll stop reporting”,
“Don’t ever short change us on our Treasure rewards else we’ll stop reporting”,
“Don’t abate rewards for not calling an archie out else we’ll stop reporting”
“Don’t use some of our Treasure rewards for proper excavations of our findspots else we’ll stop reporting”,
“Don’t extend the items covered by the Treasure Act beyond what we say else we’ll stop reporting” and perhaps most telling of all:
“Don’t write to farmers without us dictating what is to be said else we’ll stop reporting”.
Update, 18 October
The anti-heritage wing of detecting has reacted to the idea of reform already:
“I can see that following the new Code will be mandatory and any deviation of for example finding a Treasure item on grassland or digging below the ploughsoil will carry an abatement of any award.”
“Exactly! However many folk, me included, often fail to see the “desired end result” of such political manouvering. We are lucky to have individuals with such foresight & knowledge looking out for the hobby.”
“The Rally Guidance note will be next to Review i am sure. Why do one and not the other. However none are compulsory and so unenforceable.”
Nice, heroic attitudes! (And one of them is a NCMD official!). Can’t see the “desired end result” of resource protection measures; they are merely “political manouvering” and not too worried because the codes aren’t compulsory and are therefore “unenforceable”. Does Britain really need such people on the fields? Which farmer, if only the authorities explained it to him, would let them through his gate?
Grunters Hollow Farm,
by Nigel Swift
There’s a big shadow over Britain’s portable antiquities policy. It’s that PAS’s data can’t be authenticated. So it’s right to speculate on the level of false reporting. Many nighthawks lie about findspots, for obvious reasons, but PAS data is likely to be further corrupted due to what I term the “share gap”. See below, two very different documents dealing with the sharing of finds:
Detectorists can insert whatever figures they wish in the first. Typically they offer a 50% share of items worth over £300, whereas under the second they don’t have to share at all if items are worth below £2,000. That’s the share gap. Clearly, if you find a £1,900 item at one farm you can “save” £800 by “finding” it at a Central Searchers’ rally down the road and have it laundered and enhanced to boot by getting it authenticated by PAS. Common sense suggests masses of findspots get falsified that way but the matter is never mentioned by PAS. We’re all losing out in secret due to the survival instinct of a small quango.