Why do metal detecting forums only allow "approved" viewers to access the information they contain? The clue is what you will see if you sneak past the moderators posing as a diabetic West Indian carpenter from Walminton who just attends the rallies "for the company, great bunch of lads" like I do. You see all sorts of gems that elude the pro-detecting arkies (who NEVER go on such sources of information, as it contrasts with their comfy worldview):
Finds rate survey over 30 years in North Essex.
dragonsteeth71 » Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:30 pm
I've kept a detailed journal over the last thirty years and some of that includes targets dug for and 'interesting bits' recovered as a ratio. Taking away 'new' fields, as they are an unknown quantity, the 'favourites' will give me 25-35 signals an hour of which ten per cent I expect to be worth a second look (coin, buckle, wotnot). I usually go out for three hours at a time and most occasions, certainly in 2022, I'll bring back three silver coins with me of varying ages. Last trip out I got five hammered, a few before that I got a 'goose egg' as the best fields start to grow through. I agree it will depend which region of the country you are searching.
Between 7.5 and 10.5 artefacts each time he goes out, 75-105 holes dug into a finds-producing site. Say this guy goes out on average once every month, over 30 years that's the equivalent of
900-1260 x 30 = 27000-37800 holes dug, and 90 - 126 x 30 = 2700 - 3780 artefacts taken. One artefact hunter. How many detectorists have similar effect on the archaeological record, and how many making finds at that rate go out more than once a month? Can the detectorist-supporting archaeologists tell us?
2 comments:
I agree completely with your comments regarding the number of holes dug over a period of time by a metal detectorist. That problem would be solved very quickly were we to use that most efficient of archaeological tools, the bulldozer. One pass with lowered scraper blade would more than likely leave most coins and artifacts on, or near the surface thus obviating the need for unsightly little six-inch deep holes to be dug. Many thanks for drawing my attention to, and my remedy for, a most annoying practice.
This comment exemplifies the greed and selfishness embodied in artefact hunting, simply oblivious to the damage done to the archaeological record in the scramble to get out as many collectables as can be had for the least effort:
"I agree completely with your comments regarding the number of holes dug over a period of time by a metal detectorist. That problem would be solved very quickly were we to use that most efficient of archaeological tools, the bulldozer. One pass with lowered scraper blade would more than likely leave most coins and artifacts on, or near the surface thus obviating the need for unsightly little six-inch deep holes to be dug. Many thanks for drawing my attention to, and my remedy for, a most annoying practice."
How is a Portable Antiquities Scheme hoping to get through to people like this? What are they doing to reach these areas of the artefact hunting and collecting hobbies? If it is not working, what are they doing to change their approach? Serious question, they've cost us millions yet the damaging practices go on.
Post a Comment