Metal Detecting Q&A

[the invisible man]

Is it not the argument that artefacts recovered are stratigraphically recordred, in that that are only ever removed from the topsoil context? (and recorded in plan obviously) No different from fieldwalking in that respect. The difference is in the intention and the use made of the data.

To clarify, I am of course referring solely to those with academic or research intent, not those seeking artefacts for sale, collection or curiousity.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[Post-Med Potterer]

quote:and recorded in plan obviously

If they were only removed from the topsoil context and were all recorded in plan and all that data with full NGRs was sent to the SMR and the finds themselves were in the public domain (published on someone's website for example, not necessarily in a museum)...

...then I suspect this debate would not exist.

However I would guess that only a small proportion of metal-detecting expeditions do all of the above. As others have pointed out here, many finds are not removed from topsoil contexts but are from grave fills and other features.

quote:To clarify, I am of course referring solely to those with academic or research intent, not those seeking artefacts for sale, collection or curiousity

This is a red herring. I have known university-based academic archaeological expeditions produce poor data and lose the finds in bulldozed warehouses. I have known amateur antiquarians produce high quality work which is quickly published. It is the means which matters, not the end in this case.

[the invisible man]

Sorry, I did not make myself clear. I did not mean academics or research excavators literally, as in universities, I meant those seeking to study the past by means of archaeology, as opposed to those seeking trinkets for their own sake.

First paragraphs, absolutely, that's the distinction I'm trying to make, a responsible MD (for want of a better term) with appropriate objectives and methodology, is what I see as a specialised archaeologist. The others I have have grave () doubts about.

I think we are agreed, I'm just not explaining myself very well...

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[john1504]

PMP and The Invisible Man (TIM is much easier to type.....). Would the recording of finds by MD's on PAS or the UKDFD be considered acceptable?

I fully understand (now) the reason why archaeologists have been upset (for some an understatement) about the removal of artefacts from the ground. But had this information been bestowed upon detectorists 30 years ago, instead of the jumping up and down, rending of tank-tops and screaming about thieves etc, then, in almost the same breath, declaring that items found in the topsoil were of no use because they were "out of context", I believe there would be a much better relationship between us.

But this is the case when a MD uses a trowel or small spade. What would the cry out be like if the MD used a mini-digger (let alone a full size one)? The most (in)famous example being the Time Team.
We (MD's) are getting contradictory information from the archaeologists. A metal item found in the topsoil either is, or is not, important in research. If it is important, then why use a JCB to strip off the topsoil in preparation for a dig?If it isn't important, why are detectorists getting grief because they have taken what they found?

[BAJR Host]

A good question, which leads to the suggestion that MDs are asked to scan sites prior to excavation... where appropriate of course... I would not expect every watching brief on a patio extension to be included...

What we have to do is understand why we got to where we are... how we can move forward and then implement these changes. Lots of misconceptions from both MD and Archaeologists ... so ... lets try explaining and listening to each other... which does seem to be happening here.

Another day another WSI?

[Post-Med Potterer]

To completely clarify what I mean by recording, let's use the hypothetical example of a metal-detectorist expedition to a single field on the outskirts of Ambridge.

For me as an archaeologist an acceptable minimum record of this expedition which should be in the public domain (lets say the Borsetshire HER) would contain the following...

1. A location map showing the location of the field in its setting (say an A4-sized extract of the OS 1:10000 map) with the field clearly marked and with National Grid references shown. Perhaps an obvious local building - the church, or the 'Bull' public house - should also be shown to orient the viewer.

2. An accurate survey of the field itself, at 1:50 or 1:100 showing not only all the field boundaries but also OS grid, spot heights derived from the nearest OS BM and (if the field is particularly undulating) either contours or hachures showing the topography (eg. any ditches or earthwork features). On this map should be plotted the locations of all finds or detected anomolies.

3. A catalogue, cross referenced to the map (ie. each find spot is numbered on the map corresponding to an equivalent number in the catalogue), listing all of the artefacts recovered, identifying them where possible, preferably with photographs and with information about where these artefacts are now kept. This catalogue and the map should include negative evidence (eg. a ferrous signal was detected at point number 38 but on excavation was found to be part of an old Land Rover).

The maps and the catalogue should be given to the SMR/HER.

The above is a minimum - actually in an ideal world I would suggest that the maps and catalogue should be brought together in a short report which includes information such as...

1. Background history of the site
2. Methodology used (ie. type of detector employed, number of people doing it, the way the grid was set up etc.)
3. Field conditions (ie. weather, ploughed ground etc.) which may have affected the results.

Now to answer your question... if the PAS and UKDFD enable this level of recording then yes, they are acceptable. If they don't then they are not. Simple as that.

[the invisible man]

Excellent summary PMP, IMHO.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[john1504]

Your requirements look a lot like English Heritages' "Guidelines for the preparation of published reports".

From this I assume the only level of recording that is acceptable to you both would be a full archaeological survey etc.

At present, I can't see any lone detectorist carrying out a full field survey. As most detectorists don't own a GPS either, I think it would be unlikely that accuracy of find spots you require would be forthcoming. On the other hand, having searched through what Archaeological Reports that I can access, I see very few of them follow these guidlines either.

So, taking everything into consideration, if all archaeologists are of the opinion that the level of recording being carried out by 'responsible detectorists' is unacceptable, then organisations like PAS are a waste of time, and the FLO's are not doing their job correctly.

I am under the impression that not all archaeologists think like this, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I do, believe it or not, sympathise with the desire to see all finds recorded in such a manner that access to the information is both easy and complete. However, under the circumstances, being realistic, I don't see how any detectorist will be able to satisfy your requirements with regard to recording, other than taking part in a full archaeological survey.

[Post-Med Potterer]

You don't need GPS, just a tape measure and a friend.

[deepdigger]

I have GPS, I wouldnt want to go back to a tape after using this!
On the other hand I don't use a MD!

deep