24th March 2014, 12:21 PM
it is an undeniable fact that metal detectorists find important sites, often where no site was previously known. when finds are correctly reported archaeology will usually benefit from the work of metal detectorists. metal detectorists could be of more benefit if they gridded fields and recorded where they have been and not found anything.
archaeologists regularly machine off huge swathes of topsoil that would have beneffied from earlier metal detecting/surface survey. repreated visits after ploughing are useful. the old loss of context argument that is regularly trotted out by people who neither understand archaeology or metal detecting is mostly falacious but i do wish they would stop plundering 'known sites'. if you want to be useful then learn to recognise and record ceramic flint and cbm and search 'blank areas'
archaeologists regularly machine off huge swathes of topsoil that would have beneffied from earlier metal detecting/surface survey. repreated visits after ploughing are useful. the old loss of context argument that is regularly trotted out by people who neither understand archaeology or metal detecting is mostly falacious but i do wish they would stop plundering 'known sites'. if you want to be useful then learn to recognise and record ceramic flint and cbm and search 'blank areas'
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers