*
On a metal detecting site near you, some guys are talking about how to do some 
metal-detecting-not-in-accord-with-the-UK-Code-of-Practice-for-Responsible-Metal-Detecting. Anonymous metal-detectorist Peeler, apparently from the Isle of Man, begins a thread called "GPXs On Mineralised Pasture ?": I have a site where viking objects come from and its pasture ,,but its heavy mineralised and none of the top machines can touch it but my mate with the older GPX 4500 is getting Viking objects way beyond the first few inches that other detectors are getting but still within the top soil... He has learnt the machine and tweaked it up but he can tell iron and smaller coil is the best.....I was in Lincolnshire for a few days and the number of damaged artefacts recovered were disappointing.....We had no GPX and we had ancient pasture which has produce lovely finds but its has deep top soil..Three mates with me are thinking of investing in the latest GPX 5000....Yes we are madMad? Downright irresponsible. Sites on pasture (especially that pasture long enough for mineralisation to build up within the soil structure) should be left alone. Note the excuse offered for going even deeper into unploughed land, that finds are "damaged" higher up - what's happened to the PAS-fluffy argument that by digging them out willy nilly detectorists are "saving" artefacts from further destruction? Anyway, if one thought that the cost of a GPX site wrecker machine was too high, J.C. Malony informs the wannabe site-wrecker:
£100 odd quid down and £160 a month for two years... split three ways. Job done. Still learning mine which has been bought for a job and if it goes to plan I`ll understand the machine by the time the site is ready and its paid for. Loads of helpful folk around that can shorten the learning curve but if your mates used one before your most of the way there.("bought for job" on a site that's not ready?). How long before this type of machine is used to add yet another unknown to the question of what damage metal detecting is doing to the archaeological record of Britain and on what scale?
Photo: the new model of the GPX-5000mp3. For an extra couple of quid, this model has a built-in mp3 player with prerecorded classical music tracks to relax searchers in the long dark hours when they are finding nothing (An optional extra are lessons on how to use the apostrophe which many detectorists both sides of the Atlantic seem to find a challenge).
.jpg)
10 comments:
But Mr Maloney is a Detecting Liaison Officer for his club so he's hardly going to go way below the ploughsoil level is he? Not without the farmer, PAS and the local archaeologists being fully informed and giving their unconditional blessing, surely?
The PAS attend most of their club meetings and wouldn't do so if they found that the main club official was intending to act irresponsibly would they? That would be just wierd, like a Greek tragedy being played out in the fields of England while the government stood on the sidelines and cheered!
Too clarify my site is rotationally deep ploughed and moled to a depth of approx 18-24inches and direct drilled in the intervening 3/4 years.Finds within the ploughsoil indicate that archaeology is being disturbed (destroyed?)at each ploughing. Should we have a "Dave Crisp/Staffs Hoard" moment then we will stop and leave it to the County Archaeologist to resolve.
The response was to a question regarding a heavily mineralised site and the technical difficulties "within the deep topsoil".With your limited information the questioner could be detecing on flood plain alluvium or on a site that has been heavily composted/manured. I shall happily clarify that no responsible detectorist should detect below the plough level or on undisturbed pasture,although be it in my limited experience, I have never come across any pasture that hasn`t been ploughed even if only for reseeding.
But I was talking about "Peeler's" pasture Viking period site having the metal objects being hoiked out from deep down. You are not Peeler are you?
The problem with leaving the county archaeologist "to resolve" the problem caused by metal detectorist greed, deeper ad better finds, is who pays for it? Do we really want all these deeply buried (beyond the plough's reach) archaeological deposits being dug into and dug up now? What kind of "conservation" is that?
"the questioner could be detecing on flood plain alluvium or on a site that has been heavily composted/manured. What difference would that make? None.
"I shall happily clarify that no responsible detectorist should detect below the plough level or on undisturbed pasture"
Is that what you said to "Peeler" on EFID? Must have been in "invisible script". So what do responsible ("saving finds from plough damage") detectorists you need site wrecker machines like the GPX-series for then?
This "responsible detecting" malarky, it's all a big lie isn't it Mr Malony?
And please, if the PAS disagree, let them come out and say it. Is the GPX the tool of the responsible detectorist in the eyes of the PAS, and if not, how do they account for its apparent increasing popularity in UK detecting circles? Le's have a statement from British archaeology's biggest "outreach". organization. Please.
I won`t bore you with the technical ability of various metal detectors,suffice to say sensitivity and discrimination abilities are as useful as "depth" which ,despite the advertising hype, still isn`t below plough level.
I have clarified the issue of responsibility on the original post.
The point regarding "leaving it to the county archaeologist to clear up" doesn`t really cut the mustard which is suprising for you Mr Barford. The "site" (based purely on metal detecting finds so it may not even be anything significant) is being damaged by agricultural activity. In a Utopian world there would be no agriculture taking place on there and sufficient funding to excavate it...but there isn`t and we work with what we have.
The agreement in place for this land specifies that all recordable finds are recorded to a 10 figure GPS point and will be offered to any public organisation that wishes to acquire. Furthermore the agreement specifies that all parties can surrender any Treasure award to facilitate public acquisition.
I appreciate its far from perfect in certain circles but is it better to do something or nothing at all??
"I won`t bore you with the technical ability of various metal detectors,"
Yeah, I'd rather you did not, you lot all get a bit nerdish on that topic. Bleh!
"The "site" (based purely on metal detecting finds so it may not even be anything significant) is being damaged by agricultural activity."
Well, we are obviously not talking about the same forum thread, the whole idea of getting a GPX-site-wrecker was to get the "less damaged' finds from below those ploughsoily "tough conditions". The County archaeologist is being asked to deal with a problem that should not be arising if there really was "responsible artefact hunting'. That is my point which you insist on not seeing.
" The agreement in place for this land specifies that all recordable finds are recorded to a 10 figure GPS point and will be offered to any public organisation that wishes to acquire." Really? What on Peeler's site? If your mates are digging stuff out of undisturbed archaeological deposits from below the ploughsoil and the only record we get is a "10 figure GPS point", then that is no record at all.
Ask BAJR is that's how he'd run an excavation, instead of open area stripping of the deposits below ploughsoil, hoik out all the metal bits from a site by the spadeful and plot the two-dimensional location to an accuracy of ... well, how accurate are your hand-held GPSs? I was trying last year to use one to do some survey work in some dense forest, and it was very difficult getting the various bits of the linear earthworks surveyed on different days to line up on the plan.
Is this a DEFRA (or similar) agreement and do all the parties realise which machine is to be used?
To tie up a loose end or two...
WAAS enabled GPS, accurate to around 1mtr approx 95% of the time may assist with your accuracy.
My site is currently ELS. The FER (Farm Environment Record) shows no historic features on the site. To clarify...ELS Section 5.6 Protection of Historic Features (Paragraph 1) "Do not cause ground disturbance on known and currently uncultivated arachaeological sites". It is neither of these.
I see your point about involving the County Archaeologist but I would rather that option than allowing a potential site to end up either destroyed or (in your favourite phrase) hoiked out and never recorded.
Antiquarians in the 1800`s weren`t perfect (not recording accurately,hoiking stuff out to sell etc etc) but have improved significantly since. Metal detecting has its own issues but covering our ears and shouting "La La La" till it goes away won`t fix much either.
It may please you too know that I shall be away for a few days so a response to micro-dissection and misinterpreted quotes may take some time.
I might even expect a comment on the detecting communities reaction to "Hunterscorporate" but I doubt you could lower yourself to even a miniscule amount of praise.
"WAAS enabled GPS [...] may assist with your accuracy." Well it won't until its available in this country. But that, and all of your other comments are besides the point.
We are not "antiquar[ies] of the 1800s" any more than we are big game hunters, bird egg collectors, child labour factory owners of the 1800s. So I do not see the point you are making with respect to GPX metal detectors.
Nobody here is covering our ears and shouting "La La La" till it goes away won`t fix much either". (except the PAS of course). I propose that artefact hunting and British policies about artefact hunting (and collecting generally) need to identify and face these issues with the aim of resolving them. But they are not, are they? Just as this thread on the use of GPX machines on a Viking site on grassland amply demonstrates.
[Listen: can you hear the sound of "la La la" wafting across Russell Square?]
Can we keep these comments on topic?
So it's an ELS site. So I feel I should ask again:
Does DEFRA know you are intending to use a GPX 5000 on it?
I suspect not, since I suspect they'd be rather embarrassed for it to be made public that they are paying a farmer public money to protect archaeology yet
a. According to you he is continuing to deep plough and wreck it and
b. You are going to using a GPX 5000on it.
Two further questions -
Where is this land?
No need to be coy if it's ELS is there?).
How does your statement "no historic features on the site" fit in with your statement"Finds within the ploughsoil indicate that archaeology is being disturbed (destroyed?)at each ploughing"?
Paul, you might consider making this a new thread in due course. I'd hate it to be forgotten, it raises some interesting matters of both practice and principle about the nature of stewardship schemes, I'm sure you'll agree. As will Defra I shouldn't wonder once they hear of it!!
Post a Comment