Metal Detecting Q&A

[deepdigger]

Good call as usual mate!

deep

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by troll
I personally can`t stand the concept of metal detecting as a "hobby".

It is your right to have this opinion/belief Troll, no responsible detectorists would say otherwise. No more that some detectorists(myself included) are horrified to see JCB's driving over protected sites and ripping the topsoil off (usually going through Medieval 'layers' in order to get to their target which is usually the Roman 'layer'.

quote:
I also find it disturbing that any dialogue between the two camps seems to always come down to an assumption on the part of MDs that archaeologists assume total control of the nations heritage.

So who would you have controlling the nations heritage? Certainly not any 'unqualifed' or 'inexperienced' Civil Servant. You then go on to say:

quote:
.....it is high time that central government moves to introduce effective legislation to protect the historic environment from the ravages of modern development and, metal detection as a hobby...

Which, I suspect, would rule out Metal Detectorists in general .

quote:
Rather than seeing this thread as an arena where archies and MDs defend eachothers position-could we not move in one direction? Preferably one that involves seeing the nations heritage as the main focus?

This was my original intention Troll. However, as you, PMP and T.I.M. have pointed out, not all archaeologists 'approve' of MD's, in fact, you'd like to see us banned as a 'hobby'. If we were to be banned as a hobby, what would you have us do then? Work for archaeological units? Join a queue in the hope that one day some archaeologist might do us the honour of calling on us to help out at a dig?

I suspect that there is a lack of understanding on the part of some archaeologists on what makes a Metal Detectorist tick. Whether this is through ingnorance or a 'could not care less' attitude, I don't know. But one thing is for sure, if the archaeological community, as a whole and not just those who are already working with MD's, want the 'co-operation' of detectorists in recording and protecting our heritage, then I would suggest that some of you try to get some understanding, because using the heavy hand of legislation will not do anything to help. As soon as it is known that the archaeologists are trying to get this done, there will be opposition, which will drag on - and on. In the meantime, a lot of information will be lost because detectorists will realise that they have been wasting their time trying to work with the archaeologists, and that all we've received for out efforts is a stab in the back.

Please don't take this as a 'threat'. I am merely pointing out a senario that could occur because of a lack of understanding. Negotiation is the art of compromise. Any party which says 'play by my rules or I take my ball home' is not negotiating but demanding, which will only result in the other party walking away.

[troll]

Unfortunately, assumption and mock indignance rules the day. I will leave the main points you make for all subscribers to do with as they will.I do however, feel the need to respond to a few small comments.
If you guys were banned as a "hobby", I really could`nt care less what you did after that.No more so than I could care less as to what ex-hunters do now in Scotland.My main grief here is a simple one:this thread began with an open and informative environment where constructive dialogue was underway.For some reason best known to yourselves, a pubescent display of emotion tennis broke out and induced vomit in a goodly few of us.
Metal detecting is a seriously contentious issue with most professional archaeologists-as poaching is with most gamekeepers.It would be a far more useful thread here if we were to discuss the ethics of the "hobby" and perhaps hammer out some common ground. Please, I also find it a tad annoying when an MD claims a lack of "understanding" on the part of archaeologists-most of whom are highly qualified professionals. An MD can be seen as an individual that has got hold of one single bit of simple kit and choses to apply it in complete contempt of the views of many. It`s not going to be an easy ride on this thread by any means.But, please, don`t assume that an outcry from the MD community against moves to protect our heritage through legislation will improve your collective reputations-quite the opposite.

[the invisible man]

John, I'm not sure that I said anything about a ban. I don't really see such a ban would work in any case - if police don't bother to patrol our town centres on a Saturday night or even investigate burglaries and car crime, I can't see them sending patrol cars and helicopters out to check on remote fields in case someone is using a detector. Maybe there is such a thing as a metal detector detector....

Then, how far does it go? Do you ban unlicensed fieldwalking as well? OK this doesn't involve digging stuff out, unless an artefact is embedded, but evidence is removed from its last location. So do you then ban anyone from stooping to pick something up?

No-one has yet answered the usual MD query about machine stripping topsoil. I would say that in many cases the site is indeed fieldwalked and subject to non-intrusive survey (maybe including metal detectors) before topsoil removal, but it depends entirely on the circumstances, including time available, previous land use, nature of the site and so on. Trowelling of the topsoil is unlikely to be viable in a commercial context, I would fancy.

Finally I would like to see EH's reaction to an application for SMC that included a research design proposing machining through medieval contexts to get at the Roman. I suspect that such a proposal would not be greeted with huge enthusiasm.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[deepdigger]

Look guys, I'm with Troll on this!
But, argueing like a bunch os spoilt school kids aint going to sort it out!
Some kind of legislation is obviously needed as metal detecting is still going on in sensitive areas!

deep

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by troll

Unfortunately, assumption and mock indignance rules the day.

Troll. I'm not sure where you get the idea from that there was any 'indignance' (mock or otherwise) on my part. Perhaps I should insert a lot more smilies in my text.

quote:
If you guys were banned as a "hobby", I really could`nt care less what you did after that.No more so than I could care less as to what ex-hunters do now in Scotland.

Very sound hearts and minds policy you guys have. Metal Detecting is a hobby, and it will take a long time for any legislation banning it as a hobby to come into effect. As such, your 'position' is unlikely to encourage any MD to care much about what you think. It is your right, as it is the legal right of any detectorist to pursue his/her hobby within the guidlines as has already been stated.

quote:
My main grief here is a simple one:this thread began with an open and informative environment where constructive dialogue was underway. For some reason best known to yourselves, a pubescent display of emotion tennis broke out and induced vomit in a goodly few of us.

I am sure Steve-B will be happy to continue his dialogue with you...

The 'emotion tennis' you witnessed between Steve-B and I is foreplay compared to the real discussions we have. I am sure you have had 'heated' discussions with your own colleagues, perhaps more so. You don't have the monopoly on it.

quote:
Metal detecting is a seriously contentious issue with most professional archaeologists-as poaching is with most gamekeepers.

Poachers now? That 'mock indignation' you mentioned earlier now has grounds to be not too far from the truth. However, I have been called worse by people with far more expertise than you Troll, so it doesn't worry me too much....

quote:
It would be a far more useful thread here if we were to discuss the ethics of the "hobby" and perhaps hammer out some common ground.

The crux of the matter. Ethics. Define 'ethics' for me. Pound to a pinch of whatever you like that it doesn't fit the bill.

quote:
Please, I also find it a tad annoying when an MD claims a lack of "understanding" on the part of archaeologists-most of whom are highly qualified professionals.

Highly qualified in what? Archeologists aren't the only people with 'qualifications'. Some of us have qualifications which are actually productive to society. You have obviously failed to understand what I said. I don't know you, so I am unable to determine if you are being obtuse or not. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I didn't make myself very clear.

The Law of the Land has given MD's the right to pursue their hobby as they please. So long as the landowner has given permission to detect on his/her land, and they do not detect on an Scheduled site or monument, they can do so. What MD's do with anything they find is decided between them and the landowner, except where it comes under the Treasure laws. That is how it is. There is nothing any archaeologist can do about it. So, if there is to be any discussion between archaeologists and detectorists about what should be done with the 'common heritage' it is done so on the understanding that the detectorists are doing so voluntarily, and are not being forced into it. Your following comment Troll, indicates that you have no idea of the extent of the problem.

quote:
An MD can be seen as an individual that has got hold of one single bit of simple kit and choses to apply it in complete contempt of the views of many. It`s not going to be an easy ride on this thread by any means.But, please, don`t assume that an outcry from the MD community against moves to protect our heritage through legislation will improve your collective reputations-quite the opposite.

'...views of the many.' Care to put a number to that 'many'? Bearing in mind that there are an estimated 20,000 detectorists in the country (some would say far more) your argument of an MD as an individual melts away. How many 'professional' archaeologists are there in the country?

In order to put you in the picture about what this is really all about, I will ask you this question again, but in more detail.

When a JCB rips the topsoil from a site, without any prior examination, the excuse is given that anything in the topsoil is of no use in the excavation because it is out of context. This remains the case everywhere until, that is, a MD finds something. Suddently it is of utmost importance to the understanding of the archaeology of the site.

Why is this the case? No answer has yet been given. Once an answer has been given, we can then move on to the question of 'ethics'.

There is no way Troll, that I expected an easy ride on this thread. I'm a realist, and am well aware of the 'contempt' many archaeologists have for detectorists. However, I'd hoped that the members of BAJR, being associated with Hosty, would be somewhat more enlightned than the majority of archaeologists. Seems I was wrong in that assumption.


T.I.M. I agree with you 100% on the futility of legislation. People want to create laws to stop those who have contempt for the law. The vast majority of detectorists (responsible detectorists if you like) abhor the activities of the s**theawks. Not only are they robbing the heritage of the country etc, they give the honest, law abiding detectorists a bad name, only because they use metal detectors as part of their illegal activities. A bit like archaeologists being blamed if a JCB were used to break into a bank. Archaeologists use JCB's, therefore it must have been them.......Not fair is it?


I apologise if I've given you any offence regarding the 'ban'. The statement was meant collectively, not pointing to any individual in particular.

I'm sure if an application was given to EH proposing to machine through medieval contexts would be treated with disdain, as has been shown on 'Time Team' . The problem is that not all applications go through EH, and I am sure if you were to have an informal chat with your colleagues over a beer or two, you'd find out that it is not a rare occurence.

The problem is, what can we do to salvage what is left of the heritage? It would seem that any detectorist who offers the proverbial olive branch is going to have to 'run the gauntlet' first (which, to be honest, was not unexpected). This being the case, I'd like to know if Archaeologists, in general, are truely serious about getting detectorists to acknowledge the need to record and protect what they find.

[fluffy]

Are folks aware for the new higher / entry level stewardship (HLS & ELS) schemes which are currently being applied for by landowners/farmers. These schemes amongst other things do also offer some protection for archaeology; and originally no metal detecting was permitted on the land entered into these schemes (DEFRA are expecting about 95% of all land in britian to be entered).
I understand that PAS was VERY concerned about the effect that this would have on metal detecting... ie. by sending it underground (please forgive the pun), and therefore PAS and DEFRA have been negoiating a compromise which would require a contract between landowner/farmer, the metal detector and DEFRA as to which land was detected on, and that all finds to be recorded. There was even a suggestion that 'known' archaeological sites are not to be detected on, but I forget if this is current.

If the landowner/farmer allows a detectorist onto his land (which is entered into the scheme) without a permit, then he would be in breach of his agreement with DEFRA, and would have to give back all his ELS/HLS subsidies.

As far as I'm aware the draft agreement is currently with DEFRA, but obviously the whole HLS / ELS shemes will have implications for the detecting community.

[rachstebbs]

Pull your head out of whatever hole its in. Why is everything a personal insult to you?

"Highly qualified in what? Archeologists aren't the only people with 'qualifications'. Some of us have qualifications which are actually productive to society. You have obviously failed to understand what I said. I don't know you, so I am unable to determine if you are being obtuse or not. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I didn't make myself very clear."

I couldn't give a monkeys about 'qualifications' and what qualifications you have that are productive to society but, I think you're missing the point greatly. Archaeologists are highly qualified in, suprisingly enough, archaeology. Thats why we can talk about it and why we understand it. That's why we are so passionate about it.

"There is no way Troll, that I expected an easy ride on this thread. I'm a realist, and am well aware of the 'contempt' many archaeologists have for detectorists. However, I'd hoped that the members of BAJR, being associated with Hosty, would be somewhat more enlightned than the majority of archaeologists. Seems I was wrong in that assumption."
I don't have contempt for MDs. I appreciate that they are valuable to us on site and (when recording finds) can help us to identify landscapes and features we didn't know were there. (I do however think you're a t*** but thats just my opinion of you and is entirely based on the posts you have made.) This discussion is not just about your rights to detect where you want. This is MY heritage that is being lost, by bad detectorists AND archaeologists, I don't care who is doing it I want it sorting. If you have looked at any other posts, you will see the struggle BAJR as a whole is having trying to increase standards and implement some guidelines for archaeologists. Why can we not have the same for detectorists?
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick of defending myself and putting up with the crap you are talking. If you don't want to be productive then don't post here.

[troll]

What I offer on here is my opinion and has no reflection on the site Host.Having scoured metal detecting publications for years and, counting some MDs as good friends-I am a little more than informed on the subject.What the f**k is this individual banging on about? If I suddenly came into possession of a scalpel I certainly would`nt rush into operating theatres claiming
1. to be a surgeon and
2. that I and my colleagues will do as I damn well please.
It has got to the state of play where I too can no longer be bothered. This site is (for me) for and about archaeology.Whilst I had every intention of taking a full part in the excellent dialogue offered by Steve-B,I have no intention of continuing this garbage offered by whoever 1504 is or, has clearly been misled to believe he/she is. There`s over 50 million people in this country-20,000 MDs really is`nt an impressive figure. I would love to enter into constructive dialogue with the MD community but, I`m afraid I`ve run out of polite things to say to this individual. On a final note-in this country until very recently, it was quite legal to rape someone so long as you were married to them. Waving "the law" about as some sort of passport to doing as you please is no defence.Laws can be changed and the pace at which that can happen is always accelerated when the 50 or so million out there are adequately informed as to the activities of 20,000. This is my last post on this thread. I will sign off by saying this...
If there is any chance that Steve-B would consider opening a new thread of his/her own, I would love to take part in a clearly well informed dialogue.Until then, this thread can be available to those who feel the need to get involved in kindergarten politics.PS-thanks Fluffy, I like the sound of that!!!

[the invisible man]

Hey guys, calm down, take a chill pill - season of goodwill and all that!

I'm trying to tease out EXACTLY where the areas of difference are and where, if any, the common ground is. Sure it's hard for us to understand the collection of trinkets for their own sake and gee whiz value but this attitude is encouraged by the likes of Baldric and Top Ten Treasure TV programmes or whatever it was called, apparently fully endorsed by the BM no less. Like it or not it is legal, probably impossible to make illegal, so we have to work with that.

What is the answer to the MD's question about the removal of unstratified objects from the ploughsoil?

What is a reasonable and practical level of accuracy to ask them to record their finds? Should it be the same for all classes of object?

How can we agree a reporting procedure and what really are the objections to the existing ones?

Mince pie anyone?

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.