"Everybody's Lying": Some Detectorists' Opinions on Deep Detecting

A newbie detectorist "who appears to know so little he doesn’t realise how little he knows" claims that he is being lied to constantly by archaeologists (except ones who say what he wants to hear who are the only truthful ones) says that a new breed of metal detectors "won’t go that deep":

Anyway, infinitely more experienced detectorists (than someone who has only ever found two recordable finds in their life!) have settled the depth issue entirely in Farmer Brown’s favour. (“Hello there, Neil Jones here aka slow_n_low, i can now get 24″ on the same small coins as i know the machine inside out and a lot lot deeper on the larger finds”).

There was a video made on the Corfe rally showing Neil Jones demonstrating what he'd learnt, he was filmed digging an enormous hole in pasture to extract a single Roman coin from some considerable depth. Unfortunately, with Gary Brun's mysterious parting of the ways with Minelab, that video went with him, and cannot now be found on the internet. But here's a thread about it: 
Thread: Slow-n-Low GPX 5000 Depth Advantage Video, and here are some of the comments made at the end of October 2010:

great video that machine looks awesome,you certainly had to dig deep neil

Good video. I love the way Gordon stands there chatting while Neil spends 10 minutes digging.

Very impressive!

Impressive, that machine definately does its job!  Just have to hope you can do some searching between digging those craters!

Very impressive depth!!

unbeliveble depth,,,,,great video.....

Well done lads - impressive that.

Interesting approach as todays finds become more rare at the 6 to 10 inch depth, this may open a whole new style to coin and releic hunting? Well done boys.

Get used to digging deep holes boys [...].

Now that was impressive

very impressed wouldnt mind a go on one to try on our never been ploughed pasture land we've got, we've had a few deep roman but i reckon theres loads more there but out of reach of the se or etrac so this machine looks as if its capable of finding the deep ones,it would be interesting to have a bash on one

Weve got some pasture that has had loads of shallow finds on it, mostly bronzes and brooches so we're getting to the stage now where we need to investigate deeper so The GPX hopefully is going to be our answer. I think more than a few others on the forum are thinking the same way also.

we have alot of untouched pasture and theres alot of goodies we think that are just out of our reach so it would be interesting to see what the GPX is like so yeah you will be getting an invite soon mate and poor old dave doing all your digging i bet hes knackered after being out with you,digging them 2ft+ deep holes

I do not understand why digging a hole, say two feet deep, poses any threat to anything, provided it is properly filled in as that hole was.


Loved the vid, great finds and just goes to show the power of the new GPX's and what they are capable of - Awesome!

Well done. Clearly shows the advantage.

Neil proved beyond all doubt in the film that the new GPXs are capable of discrim far deeper than the few inches your suggesting. I havent used mine more than an hour at the moment but the few good finds Ive had like a nice roman brooch were well down below normal Explorer depths. Time will tell but I think we are maybe on to a real winner here.

Is this all lies? Gary Brun responds: "Do people really belive I would make à video to mislead folks??? Do you thinking I would post it to mislead my friends??? Minelab dont own me.".

I also think they may be of use on fields that have produced hoards, I am lucky enough to have found two hoards in the past, so am tempted to buy one to use on those particular fields and go over previously productive ground. Yes, they are very expensive machines but I think that the investment may be worthwhile for some detector users. Has anyone used one to locate deep stray coins from previously found hoards with success?

I would suggest it has two places in the UK market. 1. Good,heavily detected sites. 2. Known hoard sites where there maybe stragglers/more coins etc below normal depth but still within plough soil (in case this gets C&P elsewhere).

I would also put a third place on your list... 3. On sites that have only been shallow plowed. I have several sites, one of which has a Roman bath house, which for various reasons are only allowed to shallow plow. I don't think the plow has gone more than six inches on some sites. The bath house site has a restriction on deep plowing because of the archeology. Some sites have very chalky soil and some have been pasture and never been plowed in living memory!.

(omegamike, Rochester, Kent: 02-11-2010, 11:29 AM #65).

The site is protected from deep ploughing, but not deep artefact hunting and hoiking? Has the Kent FLO contacted Omega Mike about this post and this site?


as for sensitivity

"You couldnt use it on the rallies Whiggs theres too much interference to other tecterists, you need a wide berth", and "Yep and quite a wide berth from anything metallic on your body. First thing I noticed I just happened to leave the wrong boots on first time I used mine. Two metal lace eyelets sounded off big time, . Minelab even warn in the handbook about carrying loose change in your pocket and about keeping the battery pack well behind your back".

I think Andy Baines, the man who accuses myself and Nigel Swift of "lying" over this really has not been following the discussion on the detecting forums properly, and I bet he's never learnt how to use for artefact hunting the GPX 5000 or any related machine. But he seems to think that those with far more experience than him are all lying or misled too. It does not occur to him to read around the subject or find out whether he could be wrong.
   

"Responsible Detecting" and the Depth Advantage (part II: please don't take any notice)

.
The comedy goes on. Heritage Action wrote a well-argued piece about the depth advantage given to detectorists with new machines being promoted by Minelab. There is now an addendum that I could not resist borrowing. The follow up to the attention this machine has been receiving is interesting in itself. This is from the Heritage Action website:

Update 31/10/10

NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THIS TOPIC: We have received a succession of comments on this, all from metal detectorists, all telling us these machines are useless and pose no threat. Since this is so much at odds with the initial reaction on detectorists’ forums (universal delight, and many saying they would buy them) it looks very much like the comments are not to be taken at face value so we don’t feel obliged to give them a platform here. Nevertheless, here are a few examples of what we have been asked to believe. The reader can decide for him or herself whether they add up to a pretty obvious attempt to unjustly allay public fears:

“I wouldn’t take too much notice of these GPX depth claims”

“I wouldn’t get in such a panic.”

Almost no-one will buy them as they’re too expensive

“most detectorists are elderly and unlikely to wish to exert themselves to a great degree”

the three people demonstrating the machine “are well known in the detecting community to be responsible” [yet they are advocating digging to 18.5 inches?!!]

“It’s not a brand new machine, just a revamp”

“it’s not set up as an artefact finder but for hunting for gold nuggets, therefore not really that suitable for UK detecting” [even though the Minelab official site says “Also great for the specialist relic and jewellery hunter who demands the best, and wants to recover targets deeper than ever before.” ?]

“The previous model never really sold ” [so Minelab have launched this improved version expecting that this too won’t sell well?!]

“people will get pretty sick of digging lots of junk at all sorts of depths”,

“it’s mainly sales hype so the people involved can receive free detectors & other perks from Minelab”

And best of all:
“they are pretty much useless for most archaeological sites in Britain .”

Well, we can all stop worrying then! Or perhaps not. Incidentally, since not a single detectorist has written to us saying other than that these machines are useless and no threat whatsoever then detectorists will have no objection to their use being officially condemned or prohibited. Will they?

Well, will they? Time will tell, so far the PAS and British archaeologists are being very quiet about all this.

Metal Detecting (and Digging) Colonial Sites in the US

* Here we see US artefact hunters getting excited about some post-medieval finds, including coins of Elizabeth I (clunked with the spade or plough?) and James I. What is interesting is that they were found with a "depth advantage" machine, a borrowed GPX 4000. These thin hammered coins were reputedly found at a depth of "22 inches". The photo shows that this is below the top humic layer of shallow ploughsoil. The machine costs about 5000 dollars, but as dealer Woodland Detectors 4-H says in this thread:

Just like everything else...You get what you pay for. That was my initial thought, "who is going to buy these machines at those prices?" But amazingly, I sell 3 a month, and the phone is ringing for them I've got them on payment plans. They are moving. They are finding gold and relics that are paying for the machines within the first Month. [...] I think if finding lucrative relics/coins or Cache's were my goal, I'd definitely consider it. Just like a car, you get what you pay for. Look how deep this find was. [...] And these types of finds are coming like that from all over the World now.

Vignette: the Depth Advantage, digging down deeper and deeper to artefacts buried deeply below those "tough conditions" of the ploughsoil all over the world.

Everybody gets the Depth Advantage: At UK Taxpayer's Cost...

.
On a detecting forum near you, in a topic called "Minelab goes too deep" one post-PAS-outreach detectorist called "Tracker" enthuses about the new generation of metal detectors.Let us assume this is not one of the plants Candice Jarman refers to which are intended to deceive the public into thinking that its worse than it is but a genuine voice of a metal detectorist who has been a member of the EFID Forum since 2006 :

You have got to move with the times, the GPX is the next stage of the metal detecting journey, imagine how grateful everyone will be when more of our history and heritage is saved for future generations.

Bearing the above in mind I would go so far as to say that the government should make all metal detectors VAT free. In the case of the GPX the government should also consider subsidising the price something along the lines of Student Fee's. ie. You get the GPX free of charge and only start paying back the price as the finds appear, after the initial price has been paid back the detector then becomes the property of the detectorist. The Government would of course be buying in bulk further reducing the price.

Only in PAS-UK topsyturviness would an artefact hunter be writing "imagine how grateful everyone will be when more of our history and heritage is saved for future generations" by looting it deeper and deeper from otherwise unthreatened levels of archaeological sites. You would not find an Iraqi looter saying that, nor a tombarolo or haquero.

Some unthinking minister once called these despoilers the "unsung heroes of the UK's heritage" (once, he did not as far as I know repeat the mistake). Now there are buffoons among them who take this seriously, like this one calling for the Government to buy them the tools with which to further despoil the heritage.

Note that the suggestion is that artefact hunters get the tools for free, only start paying the cost back "as the finds appear" - i.e., the finds that the detectorist can sell either to fellow collectors, or for full market price back to the British people who so kindly supplied the tools to loot the heritage. Then when he's paid it off, he gets to keep the machine - and all the finds he can collect or sell which he finds with its further use. I believe this is what the British supporters of no-holds-barred emptying of the British archaeological record into private collections and onto the market as a "win-win situation" (ugh). Well, except the real losers are all those who were hoping that some part of the archaeological record may survive unscathed by the grabfest through the next few decades.

Is it NOT about time the PAS issued a statement as part of its archaeological outreach about their attitude towards this kind of talk? A statement that the role of the PAS is not to aid and abet the near total destruction of the surface evidence of archaeological sites in England and Wales (soon just England) within our generation but was in fact intended to attempt a certain amount of mitigation of the DAMAGE being caused? From that point of view the indiscriminate use of a tool like any form of "depth advantage" detector is not aiding the preservation of the archaeological record in Britain, and as such is not the mark of a responsible detectorist. Can they bring themselves to do that? Actually, bearing in mind their past record, I doubt it.

Vignette: getting down to getting the artefacts out from deep underground.

Not From The UK: "Awesome Depth Advantage" and the Archaeological Context

.
I pointed out that not a single "responsible detectorist" in the thread about a "depth advantage" on the Minelab Owners' discussion list saw any flaw in the argument that deeper penetration by metal detectors is "better" artefact hunting. Since then there has appeared a post which proves the exception. A metal detectorist comments:

I never liked Mr Barford's blog cause he just plainly dislike any use of detectors by NON archeologists but I would like to point out that right now he finally has a point. Not that it matters much to the total view of Mr Barford but the archeological Context of undisturbed finds in its original setting is of Great Value to the heritage and cannot be compared to the value of tumbled around finds in the topsoil of farmland.

Of course that's not one of the UK's government-subsidised and approved partner artefact hunters from the UK, but Bjorn Fodnes, a metal detector user from Norway.

Whether Mr Fodnes likes me or not or thinks I "have a point" is absolutely no concern of mine, but he seems not to understand what this blog is about and therefore my position on metal detectors. I think they are wonderful tools with great potential for hobby use, beachcombng, meteorite hunting, gold nugget hunting, maybe World War Two militaria collecting. What I am concerned with here is the creation of ephemeral personal collections of archaeological artefacts in a manner which is leading to an ongoing erosion of the archaeological record. This blog is called Portable Antiquity Collecting ... Issues (not Metal detecting issues). What therefore is my concern is not that I "just plainly dislike any use of detectors by non archaeologists" as I have no problem with the use of metal detectors by non-archaeologists (or non-anything) in general, but what I do have serious concerns about is the manner in which they are used for artefact hunting and the way this is carried out, despite thirteen years of PAS "outreach" trying to convince us all that "most metal detectorists are responsible" when discussions about the "awesome punching power" of a metal detector and how many artefacts can be hoiked out from even deeper below the surface indicate that this is FAR from being the case.

It is interesting to note that the point was made here not by a representative of PAS doing "outreach", nor by a one of the many supposedly "responsible" artefacts hunters who the multimillion pound outreach has convinced what "responsible" means in artefact hunting, but somebody from a different country. A country that has no PAS. What actually is the Portable Antiquities Scheme achieving except making a catalogue of just some of the things removed from the archaeological record by artefact hunters and constant public statements which only go to legitimising artefact hunting and collecting, rather than analysing the phenomenon in terms of its impact on the preservation of the archaeological record?
.

Focus on Metal Detecting: Depth Advantage Detectors Nicked in Bradford

.

The British police are looking for a gang of thieves who have on their hands 300 stolen Minelab GPX 4500 metal detectors to get rid of. They were somehow stolen from the trailer of a red and white Renault heavy goods vehicle en route from Ireland to Istanbul in Turkey while it was parked overnight in Low Moor, Bradford. Presumably the thieves knew what was in the trailer as whoever took them must have done so using a large vehicle and it is highly likely there will have been more than one person involved. The combined value of the missing machines is said to be £400,000.

The stolen metal detectors are owned by Minelab, of County Cork, and were being transported from Ireland to Turkey by Turkish agents. The HGV had stopped at a Bradford warehouse but had been parked up overnight on the roadside, close to the Guide Post Hotel. It is understood the Turkish driver slept in his cab and discovered the theft the following morning.

Minelab general manager Sheila Kelleher "said that the metal detectors were a very specialist product, used at the higher end of the market to identify gold nuggets". Well, that's not quite true, is it, because Minelab have been busty advertising these machines with their "depth advantage" as relic hunting tools able to get the goodies out from deeper down. Why does Mr Kelleher pretend they are used exclusively for something else? Well, metal detecting on archaeological sites is not exactly legal in Turkey.

Mrs Kelleher said the theft was of tremendous concern.

It certainly is, it means three hundred artefact hunters somewhere will be having the chance to get themselves a site wrecker metal detector at cut price. If you or a metal detectorist near you knows anything about this theft contact the police, on the non-emergency number 101, or Crimestoppers, in confidence, on 0800 555 111. Save a site.

Steve Wright, 'Devices used to identify gold nuggets (sic) stolen from truck parked in Common Road, Low Moor', Bradford Telegraph and Argus, Wednesday 18th January 2012

Thread: 'Thieves take £400,000 of Minelabs from a truck', Minelab Owners Forum.

Photo: Apparently the lorry from which they were stolen - parked like that on a busy road? (Telegraph and Argus)

Focus on Metal Detecting: Site-Wrecker Depth Detectors, Shh, Pretend You're not Interested

A while ago the metal detecting forums were all agog with details of the tests of the Blisstool LTC64 V3 and how powerful it seems to be. It apparently reaches depths that other machines cannot, while being cheaper than the equivalent Minelab GPX 5000 machines. Nowadays when most of the more accessible "productive" sites have been "hammered" depth has become even more of an obsession amongst detectorists, the easiest way to accumulate a personal collection or artefacts now is to get them from deeper and deeper layers of the searched site (Readers may remember that this is an issue that both this writer and heritage action have been urging that the PAS raise with policy makers, there is no sign that they actually have so). Anyhow Heritage Action have again raised the alarm about the proliferation of cheaper "depth advantage" machines ('A second open letter to the Heritage Forum'). No reaction from the heritage "professionals" but an interesting one from the metal detectorists. Over on the Detecting Wales forum the thread “Blisstool LTC64 V3 The Worlds Deepest Detector?” suddenly disappeared. It turns out that the thread had been  hidden by the site administrator and details can only be exchanged through the forum's private mail system. Just in case somebody's looking eh? Just in case somebody's looking and reach a conclusion about the way artefact hunting is going these days which detectorists would rather keep unsaid. 

Depth Advantage

-

The conservation group Heritage Action has sent an open letter to the UK's Archaeology Forum,* concerning 'artefact hunting using “deep” metal detectors'. They suggest that the growing popularity of new metal detectors with greatly increased “depth” capabilities represents a new and significant danger to the buried archaeological resource. They indicate that they have in mind ground-penetrating metal seeking tools like the Minelab GPX 5000 (which "is claimed by both the manufacturers and the growing number of users to be capable of consistently detecting small targets at depths of 17 -22 inches, far below the level of most UK plough soil and hence into underlying undisturbed archaeology"). They argue that the increasing popularity of these models has major implications for policies concerning artefact hunting in the UK.

For many years policy towards recreational and commercial metal detecting has rested upon the assertion that the activity was not particularly damaging if carried out within disturbed plough soil but clearly the use of machines capable of detecting much deeper invalidates such a claim (other than by assuming the users are prepared to exercise superhuman restraint upon the depth to which they dig in response to a signal). Despite claims the machines are too expensive and of limited use in the UK there is evidence that an increasing number are now being purchased, including for shared use by club members. In our view therefore it follows that urgent revisions are required to the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales, the Guidance for Organisers of Metal Detecting Rallies , DEFRA’s rules for detecting on Scheme land, the conditions laid out by all public landowners and statutory guardians and indeed all advice issued to detectorists and landowners by archaeologists.

They point out that the growing popularity of these machines means the PAS may well find itself increasingly often in the invidious position of attending a commercial artefact hunting rally (bad enough) "and having to record numerous finds taken from below the plough soil right in front of them". HA suggest that this is something that ought to be condemned as irresponsible use of the finite and fragile resource that is the archaeological record.

HA do not mention the other point, that artefact hunting is officially condoned these days on the grounds that it is (sic) "rescuing" objects that are under threat of being damaged by agricultural activity in the ploughsoil, the fact that growing numbers of artefact hunters given a change eschew this activity in favour of getting their hands on the "less damaged" artefacts from below the ploughsoil rather scuppers that argument. Perhaps the reasons why the UK archaeological world finds itself able to "partner" artefact hunters rather than discouraging them need to be re-examined. The arguments offered a decade or so ago may not be so applicable to the current situation or that in a decade's time - and yet the despoiling of the archaeological record to fill scattered and ephemeral personal artefact collections goes on, largely unmitigated, year after year.

*[ The Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers, The Association of Regional and Islands Archaeologists, The Council for British Archaeology, The Institute of Field Archaeologists, The Institute of Historic Building Conservation, The National Trust, The National Trust for Scotland, Rescue: the British Archaeological Trust, The Society of Antiquaries of London, The Society of Museum Archaeologists, The Standing Conference of Archaeological Unit Managers.] Vignette: borrowed from Glasgow University.

Staffordshire Hoard Archaeological Scandal Act Three

.
The Staffordshire hoard field has an area, I reckon, of about 48200 square metres. Its about 350 metres long along the ridge, and 230 m across at its widest part. So if one wanted to do a proper metal detecting survey after the "first ploughing after the hoard discovery", how many people would you employ with sensitive "depth advantage" detectors, and how long would you need to do the job properly? So, just eight people in two weeks? Is that OK?

Those of us who read metal detecting forums with any attention will duck sniggering behind our monitors at the naivity of someone who claims they can do a 100% survey of such an area with just eight blokes in two weeks. But that is exactly what some hapless archaeologist has just claimed in the PAS' favourite artefact collecting magazine "The Searcher". This would be utterly laughable were it not another tragic example of the ongoing shameful botchup which  is the story of the Staffordshire Hoard. "Surely this story cannot get worse" one thinks, and then you read "The Searcher" and weep.

In just two pages with three photos project leader Bryn Gethrin tries to convince us all (well, metal detectorist readers of the Searcher) that everything is OK. He obviously is trying to make the best of a bad job, and failing utterly.

His eight man team is pictured in the article. I am not a great detector nerd, but it seems to me that only one of the blokes is pictured carrying anything like the distinctive shape of a Minelab GPX 5000 with its chunky underslung box, but whether or not it is I could not say. In any case, any nighthawk going onto that field tonight with such a machine has an advantage over the majority of the people working with the archaeologists. You would think that with all the "partners" PAS has, one might find better equipped tekkies for such an operation. I'll come back to that photo later.

Mr Gethrin is very careful not to reveal how long they were out in the field. Hilary Cool however does not know it was supposed to be a secret and reveals that it lasted at the most two weeks ("took place within the final two weeks in November"). This matches with the report in a metal detecting forum of "15 detectorists" (interesting!) on that field in the morning of 21st November 2012. In order to do the entire field (Gethrin 2013, 16), that would be 480 sq metres daily for each searcher. But, "the weather was appalling" and the day short in November. Nighthawks all over England will be reaching for their warm woolly outdoor gear and torches reading that. As any tekkie would confirm, it takes years and years to hammer a field, not 14 days with eight blokes in the rain and mist. The article's author seems to think sophisticated transects etc are enough to  ensure they get everything. This really does signal a lack of time spent on the "partners'" forums, where he'd learn beyond all question that not everything is found in one or ten trip even after a single ploughing. The article ends forlornly "in our opinion [we] found as much as could be found". He forgot to add, "working under such conditions". But then should a professional archaeologist be working under such conditions?

 Mr Gethin goes to great pains to say that they found the field to be "full of modern metal detritus, in fact just like your [sic] average day in any field. We did get a little tired of cow ear tags, bull nose rings and beer cans". Obviously he hopes that by saying this, the nighthawks will decide not to bother. What he does not say is whether when they found stuff like this, whether it was reburied (to be found again in any future archaeological surveys) or taken away to remove the contamination from the soil.

The article stresses something one would have thought not needing mentioning in an account of a piece of archaeology, but this text is written for tekkies: "naturally, nobody kept anything, everyone signing a waiver saying as much before the project began".  Artefact hunting is of course normally about taking away what is "detected".

The posed group photo on page 16 is looking north and is situated very close to where the holes photographed by Nigel Swift three weeks ago have since appeared. If you look closely at the ground between the figures you can see where the edge of the trampled area ends, beyond which are untrampled clods casting shadows. It appears the whole area in the foreground has been heavily trampled (so heavily searched)  while the area behind had not (yet) been done. This suggests that the searching was started somewhere to the south of the actual hoard findspot, rather than starting there and working out. Why? And why is this same spot now being visited by nighthawks? What is still here (or was before the nighthawks got it)?

There is another puzzle. The photo on the bottom of page 17 is labelled "finding the cheekpiece". This bloke (finder John Palmer?) is shown apparently squatting by the actual hole where he found whatever it is he has in his hand. The caption says its the 'cheekpiece' which matches that from the hoard proper. But is it? Is it from the hoard proper? It seems to me that if you match up the trees and hedgerows visible through the mist, it is possible that this finder was not actually on the Hoard findspot but a point 35-40m distant, and if so, this would raise the question of whether it had originally been part of the original deposit or another one.


It seems to me that the Staffordshire Hoard is demonstrating the huge gaping flaw in the British antiquities 'preservation' legislation. British archaeology has been caught unawares by the find, it was not prepared to do a proper investigation in 2009, the 2010 followup was on an inadequate scale. The site is not protected and for three years has most likely been looted many times, in 2013 archaeologists return there to attempt working on a shoestring to do something with eight blokes bringing their own equipment, a few volunteer fieldwalkers wandering about in adverse conditions. There is no money to do a project on the scale this find requires - not only should the entire field be surveyed very carefully, so should the field to the west, the fields to the north down towards the stream (at least). There are no resources for a team of any size to go out and conduct top-quality large-scale archaeological work on such sites and process and publish the results. meanwhile the looters go back again and again to the site so nicely put on the map for them by the search by Terry Herbert aided by the evil "spirits of Yesteryear". Instead of a piece of world class archaeology, we see here a bit of typical British muddle-through and make-do, incapable of meeting the challenges caused by current archaeological policies on artefact hunting and collecting. But hey, we got the gold did'n we? 


*  The magazine of course, though very widely read in the metal detecting milieu, is obviously never read by a single "nighthawk".

Vignette: Terry Herbert celebrating his "windfall" which has cost British archaeology more than mere cash which it does not have. 

Not in it For the Money, Or Perhaps We Are Really...

Reportedly, a treasure hunter is being sued by the Church of Scotland over a record £2million haul of Viking relics he found on their land (Kevin Duguid, 'Treasure hunter sued by Church of Scotland over record £2million haul of Viking relics he found on their land' The Scottish Sun, 14th September 2019) Kirk chiefs are said to be demanding Derek McLennan, 52, hands over £1million after he allegedly snubbed a written agreement to give them half the value of his bounty. This refers to a much trumpeted find from Dumfries and Galloway in 2014

The metal detector buff now faces a legal challenge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh [...] One source said last night [...] “The church could do a lot of good with that money. It was church land they were on [...] “You don’t want to get in a legal wrangle over it. Why would anyone let him on to their land again — or any other detectorist?” [...] the retired businessmen, from Ayr, was promised the bumper reward three years later under Scots treasure trove laws. His payment was raised through more than £430,000 in public donations, £1million from the National Heritage Memorial Fund, £150,000 from the Scottish Government and £400,000 from the Art Fund. [...] In this case there was a written agreement between the general trustees of the Church of Scotland and Derek.” [...] The Church of Scotland confirmed their court action.

His former detecting pal talked about the fracas:

The minister said charity champion Derek felt let down by experts drafted in after his discovery. He added: “He felt very badly treated by the treasure trove system in Scotland who decide on rewards. Experts took control and he was pushed to the edge a bit. He did everything by the book in terms of working with the system. “But he felt because of the way he was treated by the system he wanted to put the whole thing behind him.” 

Here's a text about his complaint about his 'treatment'  and here's about those public funds he gets.

UPDATE
It seems it could be even worse if you look at the comments. A "Susannah McSweeney" alleged on 15th September:

Derek also broke gentelman" agreements with his team mates, including my husband. There was 4 of them including Derek's wife sharon, not just the church of Scotland. [...] The other 2 men including my husband were also snubbed by Derek after the viking hoard was claimed and since broken off all contact and never had any recognition for being there to unearth the treasure. What was done was shady and despicable.

What is worth noting however is that the Church claims there was a written agreement, not just a "gentleman's agreement". If what Mrs McSweeney alleges is true, one detectorist first pushes aside three other blokes, and then attempts to lay claim to the entire reward for himself alleging that he was "sidelined by the experts". If that is true, all very odd and immature.

The BBC also has picked up the story: BBC, 'Church of Scotland sues for share of £2m Viking treasure', 15th September 2019.

There is an added detail in another source (Russell Blackstock, 'Kirk to sue treasure hunter claiming he reneged on promise to share proceeds of £2 million Viking hoard found buried on church land' The Sunday Post September 15, 2019):

Following the find, Mr McLennan and his detectorist wife Sharon launched a firm called Beyond The Beep, to work with the Coming Home Centre for ex-forces personnel in Glasgow and veterans’ mental health charity Combat Stress. [...] Derek McLennan found the Viking treasure just months after discovering hundreds of medieval coins in Twynholm, Kirkcudbrightshire, in another landmark find. He only started using a metal detector a few years before two stunning discoveries.

Beyond the Beep does not seem to be all that active these days. Here's John Winter enthusing about it. But here's the Minelab spiel on it:

We'd like to introduce Sharon McKee and Derek McLennan of Beyond The Beep, Scotland, to our Treasure Talk audience. Sharon and Derek have 12 years of combined detecting experience and for the last few years have used a wide range of Minelab machines, from the GO-FIND Series through to the GPX 5000 for personal detecting and to promote responsible detecting through their not-for-profit company, Beyond The Beep. Since February 2015, the couple have been regularly providing outdoor learning experiences in schools, and they have also created and implemented a detecting programme for veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). [...] Derek mostly uses the CTX 3030, but when on a hoard site, the GPX 5000 comes out, as he loves the depth these machines can reach. [...] After the discovery of The Galloway Viking Hoard, the enterprising pair created their company Beyond The Beep to teach about responsible detecting and to promote the health and educational benefits that detecting brings [...] The programme is also supported by the National Council of Metal Detecting in the UK, to which Beyond The Beep is affiliated.

All in this together, eh? Derek McLennan is also a ML detexpert Now that GPX is one of those "depth advantage" machines that Heritage Action and I have been going on about for a good few years now, but the implications of which are being systematically ignored by the archaeological community, but look at this remark:

Last week, Mr McLennan’s friend and fellow metal detector enthusiast, the Rev David Bartholomew, who was with him when he made his discovery, told how [...] Mr McLennan had searched the unidentified area of Church of Scotland land for more than a year in the hunt for treasure. [...] Mr McLennan, 50, unearthed the valuables two feet beneath the ground – well below the depth his machine should pick up a signal. [...] Mr Bartholomew said: “I would never have found the hoard. Derek did because he is a gifted detectorist. “I was just pleased to be part of an amazing day.”

and would like that money from a pagan hoard to go to the Church and used for the benefit of the parishoners.

Detecting Under the Microscope: Noctadetecting Deeper now

.
Google thought it appropriate to shove an advert to Turkish metal detector manufacturer "Noktadetectors" onto the blog-management page of this blog. So, since they seem so concerned to share information about their new range with Google-users, here's an excerpt from their website (much of the emphasis in the original):

With the Golden Sense, specifically developed for gold nuggets, coins and other small metals, you will easily detect targets at depths that other detectors cannot reach. Golden Sense not only finds shallow gold nuggets, coins and other metals detectable by other detectors, but it also does not miss smaller metals at incredible depths that other detectors cannot reach. Especially in areas that are rich in gold nuggets, coins and deep metals, the surface of the ground has been searched for years and most of the shallow and smaller metals have been dug out. Searchers in such areas need to reach the gold nuggets, coins and other metals buried deeper underground. Golden Sense is now offering this opportunity with its detection at incredible depths provided by its electronic design, software and special search coil. Consequently, it is becoming the ideal choice for gold, coin and treasure hunters.

They have a silent model, ideal for Noktatection:

SILENT SEARCH A lot of detectors in the market produce a constant background tone called 'threshold' for deeper detection. The user must follow the pitch changes in this tone to identify a target. Listening to this tone constantly disturbs the user as well as making metal detection harder. Golden Sense with its groundbreaking technology has no threshold and it gives out a warning tone only when it detects metal while offering more depth than other devices. Therefore, it allows for a silent, comfortable and deeper searching experience.

So, if you want a metal detector for looking for gold, and you'd like one that will not give your presence away by squawking all the time when you are out doing a bit of noktatection, and you want to penetrate down to artefacts deep in the undisturbed soil, then obviously you need to get in touch with your local Noktadetector dealer. These site-wrecker depth advantage detectors are getting around everywhere recently, and still no official statement from the PAS.

Vignette: Noktadetector certainly seem to want us to think that their machines can allow Treasure hunters to hoik gold from well below plough level.

Metal Detector treasures: "Get A New Site"

.
It does not really say outright who is behind it (of course) but there is a new blog called "MetalDetectorTreasures" (seems to have started in January 2011) with some gems of information about the hobby. Such as this one which relates to the "depth advantage" question I was discussing a while back. This author has a different approach:

New Metal Detectors v New Sites – NO CONTEST
March 30, 2011 | Author Bill mc Cullough (aka: Peace Havens)
These days we are bombarded with new super metal detectors which promise to fulfil you hearts desire. SORRY to burst your bubble but the best-est, deep-est, latest LCD-est, Multicoloured-est detector will be virtually useless if you try detecting on one of my old sites. My sites are cleaned out, as are thousands of others throughout the country. Which is why eBay is full of metal detectors for sale that have been used once or twice. BUT all is not lost. If you want to find anything these days you need a NEW SITE not a new detector. Give me a standard detector with minimum discrimination and a 6″ depth PLUS a new never visited site and I will beat any fancy expensive machine who is trying to find something that has been missed on a cleaned out site. SO … find yourself a new site and save yourself some money…

Thousands of cleaned out sites all over the UK. that is the legacy of current policies towards artefact hunting. Of course as more and more of the thousands of artefact hunters move away from the thousands of cleaned out sites, the number of intact archaeological sites year by year decreases at a rate that can only be guessed - because of course nobody interested in maintaining the status quo is going to measure it.

The Questions Metal Detectorists Ask (2)

.
This is the second of three posts dealing with the questions on metal detectorist Candice Jarman's blog ('How about answering some questions Mr Barford?').

2. How would Mr Barford propose to prevent the items within the ploughsoil from being further damaged by modern machinery and chemicals? I am told that coins found long ago were generally in much better condition than those found now, due to widespread use of fertiliser.

First of all, mere anecdote is not enough to "prove" that this effect is either general or significant. I question whether the evidence has been properly marshalled to achieve this - in the forthcoming book there is a whole chapter discussing the evidence for and against this based on published studies. It is concluded that this is a myth, but the reader will have to await the full presentation in the book. "Fertiliser" has of course been used throughout farming. The qualitative change in finds now being made is due to the improvement of detectors and detectorists able to find more and more mineralised finds in the soil. the changes in the nature of finds coming onto the market as a result of the spread of metal detecting has been discussed here before.

What I would "propose" doing in cases where a threat is recognised and there is no means (for example through the conservation-bases Stewardship Schemes) to prevent it, is to conduct the work in accordance with the procedure laid down in the English Heritage document "Our Portable Past".

It is notable with regard these conservation schemes that there is discussion on metal detecting forums (for example the thread "No-Till farming methods") where these schemes themselves are presented as a threat to metal detecting. No ploughing means no artefacts brought to the surface from the erosion of buried archaeological sites! (let us recall too the recent discussions about the "depth advantage"). Things like this suggest very strongly that the "concerns" expressed about plough damage by metal detectorists is really just a front to allow them to continue hoiking stuff out of sites as they want. Please do not take my word for it, make 2011 the year you all log onto a closed-access metal detectorist forum or two to see what attitudes and depth of knowledge about the wider context of artefact hunting they reveal.

Frankly, I do not see this so much as a "question for Barford" from UK metal detectorists as much as one which, after thirteen years of PAS outreach, is somewhat misdirected. This really IS a question for the PAS, so my question is, why are these people coming to me with these questions and not to the PAS? Is it because they are observant enough to notice that PAS "archaeological outreach" has for thirteen years consistently failed to address such questions?

UPDATE 30/12/10:
Candice tells his readers that my answer is a "cop out":

Instead of quoting published studies that we could all look up, he refers to his forthcoming book - where according to the old wind-bag all will be explained. Well Mr Barford, I have news for you. Very few people are going to buy your forthcoming book - a few University libraries might buy it, but that will be about all! So why not quote these published studies in your answer, maybe for once we could learn from you!

Perhaps it is a cop-out, but I really have no time for discussing the ins and outs of soil science and corrosion studies carried out in Scandinavia and elsewhere and field studies by English Heritage here (especially with spiteful metal detectorists who cant even write under their own name and pose as blonde secretaries). I think that the PAS is there for metal detectorists to go to with such questions and it is their business to be able to back up what they say with the literature in a transparent manner so we can all see how they arrive at their conclusions. I've looked into it carefully and will be publishing in full the reasons why I have concluded that the situation is not at all as the metal detectorists and their supporters would have us believe.

But of course Candice totally ignores the other points I made in the post above, IF there is damage occurring by the mechanisms Candice claims, they why does this have to be mitigated merely by letting artefact hunters liberate the material onto eBay? Let me repeat: What I would "propose" doing in cases where a threat is recognised and there is no means (for example through the conservation-bases Stewardship Schemes) to prevent it, is to conduct the work in accordance with the procedure laid down in the English Heritage document "Our Portable Past". But then, that is not the answer artefact collectors want to hear is it? (see the penultimate paragraph of my post, also ignored by Candice, claiming a cop-out, who is copping out here?). Where is the collectors' interest in "conservation" when it involves NOT collecting the stuff away to their scattered ephemeral little hoards of geegaws?

Frankly, I do not see this so much as a "question for Barford" from UK metal detectorists as much as one which, after thirteen years of PAS outreach, is somewhat misdirected. This really IS a question for the PAS, so my question is, why are these people coming to me with these questions and not to the PAS? Is it because they are observant enough to notice that PAS "archaeological outreach" has for thirteen years while being very supportive of this hobby and these hobbyists as long as they "show them the stuff", has consistently failed to address such questions?
.

Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Rejoicing Heard in the Hills and Valleys!

.
This is pretty unbelievable, but in a thread called End Of Time Team the metal detectorists of Wales are applauding the announced demise of the TV programme. You know, all those blokes out there who with one voice claim to "only be in it fer th'istry" ("always wanted to be an archaeologist, but nevver 'ad the chance [me spelling let me down]"). This is the whole justification for PAS-partnering of this milieu to enable them to "engage" with the past. Anyway they are tickled pink that there will be one less archaeology programme for people to watch. On hearing the news, member "Proconsul" ("Administrator, Hero Member") proclaims:

Hooray! All metal detectorists should be delighted at this news. The Time Team programme has been a consistent enemy of metal detecting and [Tony] Robinson and [Professor Mick] Aston have done everything they could to get our hobby banned, including giving 'evidence' against us in front of a Parliamentary committee. I for one am extremely happy that Channel 4 have finally come to their senses and binned this programme.

Because the Time Team archaeologists were asked to give (and gave) an archaeological opinion? He is glad it is going because from time to time a less-than-wholly fawning opinion was expressed about artefact hunting from an archaeological point of view on an archaeology programme? Now it is gone, does he imagine that any who were persuaded by the message that there is a problem in current policies towards artefact hunting and collecting will now assume that since the problem has gone, that particular problem has too?

Another time-worn mantra-compilation from the Taffish beep-beep boys was submitted by member "Rjm" ("Detector Guru, Superhero Member"). He writes (apparently not understanding one bit what he's on about):

It always amazed me that they could rip the top 12" of topsoil off with a JCB digger without a second thought...... the very soil that we detect...... and then criticise detectorists for removing items out of context! If it wasn't for detectorists we wouldn't have the wonderful hoards and other finds in our museums. I personally think these so called academics don't like amateurs intruding into their sphere of so called expertise. I think detectorists have given the nation more than them and they don't like it. The good detectorists do far exceeds the odd bad incident. [...]

Well, I suppose many will continued to be "amazed" by things they do not understand. The rest of us think that Britain has thrown millions of quid at an outreach Scheme to liaise with these people and explain simple things like the difference between surface evidence surveys and excavation and all that. It's not rocket science, but it seems the PAS has concluded that it's beyond their capabilities to explain that to their "metal detecting" partners over fifteen years of "outreach". Quite what they've done with the time and money apart from compiling a database of objects lost from the archaeological record is beyond the rest of us. In any case, quite a lot of the discussion on detecting forums these days is about the new generation of sensitive depth advantage machines and the advantages they give over those who do shallow detecting. The PAS would of course  never create such a list (because their "partners" would not come out too well if they did), but I bet if the public were kept properly informed about what's happening out in the fields, a high proportion (perhaps a very high proportion) of the multiple-object Treasure finds made each year are coming from below ploughsoil levels, despite strenuous efforts of the pro-collecting lobby to suggest otherwise. 

Mr Rjm may "personally think" what he likes, the rest of us can reflect on what the real problem is with ten thousand self-interested artefact hunters week after week pulling as many collectable metal artefacts they can out of the archaeological sites and assemblages all over the country, keeping what they want, flogging off or discarding what they do not. If it was elephants, wild orchids or bats I do not expect too many (sane) people would be saying that the reason ecologists are unhappy about it is because they are jealous that killing them is in their area of expertise. I think most (sane) people would realise that this would look rather like a total misunderstanding of the concerns (and areas of activity) of ecologists. Again, where is the PAS when nonsense like this again emerges in the community of their artefact-hunting "partners"?

Finally, I would contest the statement that "detectorists do good". I would ask the question whether instead the PAS (I assume that's what hides behind that glib comment) is a necessary evil required in the circumstances by what, archaeologically, would be an even greater one?

Do not rejoice, all you Philistines, 

that the rod that struck you is broken; 

from the root of that snake will spring up a viper, 

its fruit will be a darting, venomous serpent. 

Isaiah 14:29

 

Blaydon Boyz and an Archaeological "Partner" Filmed in Action

.
Have a look at this video, pay special attention too to the soundtrack (Holst, Zimmer/Da Vinci Code, Greensleeves remix). Never mind the seal, pay attention to the deposit of three paterae at the beginning. Dug out from below plough level, hoiked out of obvious stratigraphic context. It was found whole, could have been properly excavated and lifted, but has instead been fragmented and roughly cleaned by the time it gets to a pub-meeting with the FLO. Note how the latter gives the finder a good talking to about "best practice" (not). Is this the way to preserve the archaeological heritage? What on earth are PAS doing here? Where is the promotion of the Code of Responsible practice in this? Who gives a damn that the FLO has got a drawing and measurements of a patera when it is produced at the expense of trashing the archaeological context in which it had lain for nigh-on two thousand years? And no, Mr Collins the handle was not "welded aan" to the body of the "pot".

.

The Treasure Act urgently needs revision so that things like this and the Crosby Garrett helmet do not slip through and people thoughtlessly damaging the archaeological record like this are penalised.

As the person, member of the PAS' great British public (and not even a member of Heritage Action) who sent this to me remarked,"I actually feel like I’ve been mugged [...] can you imagine the loss of information from around and within that delicate pan? [...] for me, some of these clubs are run by the lowest dregs of society, especially as they can’t really plead ignorance as the FLO obviously attends their club meetings. It looks more like a meeting of Fagan’s thieves waiting to divvy up all the proceeds of a heritage crime". That's a view of a member of the public of PAS "partnership" in action. Mr Collins, what are you doing? What are you achieving here? Why is Britain paying archaeologists to lend support to activities like this when all the codes of ethics say archaeologists should be doing their best to stop it?

Also, are we really expected to believe the seal came from the hole shown at 7:16? Certainly that seems a boast about the "depth advantage" which suggests the extent of the destruction these people are capable of doing.

Renewed Focus onUK Metal Detecting: Filling in the Holes is not Enough

Over two years ago Australian metal detectorist C. Nyal de Kaye wrote:

 I do not understand why digging a hole, say two feet deep, poses any threat to anything, provided it is properly filled in ...

I've discussed that text here, and see that de Kaye was on this blog last night looking at my post on it  but as yet there has been no retraction of his assertion that there is nothing so "foolish" as to express concerns about the new generation of site-wrecker "depth advantage" machines being used on archaeological sites. Neither - which is more significant - has he attempted to justify the dismissive tone he adopts in his 'argument'. Digging a hole two feet deep into an archaeological site in the UK, Iraq, Kashmir or even Australia does indeed pose a threat to its integrity and information value; digging several, or several dozen, destroys it.

Vignette: nice and flat after the act... 

3D Metal Detected Goodies Flying through the Air in Oxfordshire

.

Museum objects "go 3D digital" trumpets the UK's Culture24 website:

Visitors can watch spearheads from 1150BC and a 2,000-year-old stash of gold coins fly through the air in a 3D video display after technological whizzes shot close-up sequences of The Oxfordshire Museum’s collection of ancient artefacts and toyed with their backgrounds to superimpose the locations where they were originally found. Gold and enamel finger-rings and the nine-piece Grove hoard [...] have been repositioned against digital backgrounds, manipulated and rotated in a project by Rob Munday. “The brief was to produce an exciting and captivating display which held the attention and enabled the wonderful craftsmanship and detail of the objects to be fully appreciated,” explains Munday [...] Curator Cherry Gray said the innovation would allow the museum to highlight every nick and pattern of the precious display. “New technology has created exciting ways to bring objects to life, and for us to effortlessly enjoy the detail of tiny objects which would otherwise be missed,” she added.

So what are museums for? Are they places where the objects become a mere ancillary to (the source of) hi-tech multimedia displays? Of course the point is that since the latter can be widely disseminated, if that is how the past is to be "experienced" in the future, why have people coming to museums at all? Presumably I can get the 3d image of the whole Grove Hoard on a DVD to enjoy, make fly through the air in my living room. So why then can portable antiquity collectors not collect these? If these images allow the "wonderful craftsmanship and detail of the objects to be fully appreciated" and allow the highlighting of "every nick and pattern" of the subject?

What disturbs me however is that almost certainly every single object chosen for that hi-tech display was a metal detector find ("Highlights of the 3D special: Medieval brooches found in Radley and Cholsey, Two post-Medieval dress hooks which were discovered in Woodstock, Roman coins unearthed in Shellingford, A post-Medieval cosmetic set from West Hagbourne"). Once again the uncritical "unsung heroes of the heritage" model of artefact hunting and collecting gets another public boost.

A few days ago in discussing detectorists' excitement about "the depth advantage" I pointed out the scarring of the spectacular hilltop above Corfe Castle by metal detectorists slicing up the turf looking for collectable goodies below. I had a comment from a metal detectorist yesterday who said "I have a protective love of our countryside and if I thought I was damaging it in any way I would cease this hobby forthwith". Part of the charm of the English countryside is that it is rich with traces and signs of the history of those who inhabited and used it before us. This "power of place" is a value we should surely cherish and be protecting, not use it all up selfishly. Quite obviously artefact hunting is scarring and defacing the archaeological record which is an integral part of that history (this of course is not a quality restricted to the British countryside). Removing the object from that place removes part of the story of that place, irreparably damaging the "power of place" of that site to tell its story. It is therefore interesting to see that by using virtual media to represent the display of the object "in" the setting of the place where it was found, this exhibit emphasises the link between the isolated object and the landscape (and therefore archaeological) context from which it was removed. I bet though that the exhibit does not go that one step further and make the point that hoiking collectable geegaws out of those contexts for personal entertainment and profit should be discouraged (I'd be only too happy to be corrected on that).

Culture 24: 'Medieval treasures get 3D exposure as Oxfordshire Museum goes digital on collection', 28 October 2010.

Photo: A 3D anaglyph picture of a Shoe buckle (1650-1750) from The Oxfordshire Museum, which the public can now view in 3D on 24 inch tv screens using a pair of red-cyan anaglph glasses (24Culture, courtesy of technology company Holovision)

Is it, or Isn't it? PAS Supporters get a Chance to Challenge

Is East Anglia's Buried and Unexplored Heritage being Pilfered in an unsustainable way? 

That's the provocative title of this afternoon's upcoming seminar. British archaeologists who support the current status quo will presumably want to say "no, everything is under control, we have the PAS and its metal detecting partners and everything is hunky dory". The PAS FLOs will presumably also be dying to tell us how it is, how the system we have is the best thing we have since sliced bread. These groups by definition feel that the archaeological record is in no way being 'pilfered' by being mined for collectables, and that what is going on out in the fields is some form of sustainable management of the erosion. I amm sure they will have some good answers and awkward questions for those who believe otherwise.

Meanwhile, those British archaeologists who are as worried as myself about the effects of the current situation will have a forum to express their concerns, I am interested how many will turn up to show their faces.

Apparently these seminars have been attracting 25-35 people each time, and the local and Cambridgeshire FLOs are regular attendees, so we look forward to some vigorous discussion of the archaeological issues. Already local archaeologists George Somerfiled, "Clare", Clive Falstaff and "Adam C" have begun the polemic on the USC blog, and promising more later on today. I look forward to meeting them, the latter promises to bring along a few colleagues. On a detecting forum, on the other hand, it has been suggested that I will chicken out and appear by video link - not wanting to face criticism by my archaeological peers. Well, I am here and curious to see what the afternoon brings.

UPDATE
It went quite well, considering. Of course the FLOs never turned up, the PAS was represented by a lady from the BM who took copious notes and revealed she'd been asked to report back to Bloomsbury "what he said" (Roger if you ask normally, I can send you a copy of the text!). Three metal detectorists came up to me afterwards and were very civil and wanted to exchange a few comments - which was very welcome. It was good to meet UKDFD's Jon Adkin (Flinty). Another one (Clive6) wanted to put me right on "depth advantage" detectors and made a good point about them. Needless to say, none of the persons who'd commented under assorted names claiming to be archaeologists who wanted to make comments on my interpretation of facts made themselves known.  There were a lot of good questions and points made from archaeologists, museum folk and others. Certainly a lot of food for thought. Thanks.

Only afterwards when mulling over what had been said, did it occur to me that the HA Artefact Erosion Counter which I'd presented did not even come up at all in the discussion. It seemed that those present were willing to accept as a starting point of what they were saying that it could indeed represent what was happening.  Through that, I did not say something about it which I'd been saving up for the discussion... But that is quite an interesting development in itself because it is precisely the implications of the HA Counter that irresponsible UK detectorists do not want discussed (because of course those convinced of their responsibility to the archaeological record will be discussing it with us).

I was also very interested in comments made about the PAS both in the session as well as in the corridor.
It seems I am not alone in formulating certain observations. It seems British archaeology is not as fully behind the Scheme as I had thought. In the light of that, it seems to me even more to be the case that the Scheme really needs to be seen to be engaging more with archaeological concerns as it seems in danger of becoming a divisive force in British archaeology - which is already internally split along other lines.

UPDATE 11.04.13
Quite a nice writeup on LM - includes transcript of live tweeting which gives a flavour of the topics covered in the initial presentation and our subsequent discussion.

Vignette: USC logo

Detecting Under the Microscope: "Unofficial" Hoards

.

BlisstoolUK Forum member "daimole" says that his interest in the Blisstool LTCX64 was kindled while watching the promotional videos for this "depth advantage" machine on youtube. This guy claims to have found "one hoard previously OFFICALLY and two others unoffically", he announces that he will soon be revisiting these sites "pronto" to utilise the machine's "capabilitys" to see what was left in the ground at all three sites. The "official" hoard "was comprised of twelve hammered silver of lizzie 1st/ James 1st/Charles1st". the second "unofficial" (presumably he means undeclared) "was a scattering of William the 111 shillings five in total" and the third "unofficial" hoard "four very small silver maybe celtic". Let it be noted that further discussion in the thread concerned, not that the guy was apparently blithely admitting to have infringed the law by not making his hoard discoveries "official", but whether he was correct in referring to the machine as "LTCX64 V3I", or whether he should have used the term ""LTCX64 V3". That's tekkie nerdery in action, masking a total lack of moral fibre.   

One detectorist added:

"I think we are all wanting to get over those previous sites we have done alone or with clubs and see what we have been leaving behind...".

Obviously he belongs to a club which has no code of ethics forbidding members to go back to farmers who have allowed club digs to do the site over again privately. 

So, is PAS willing and able with the aid of the Forum administrators to identify a (Welsh, maybe - "Dai"?) metal detectorist who  reported "twelve hammered silver coins of Elizabeth I/ James I/ and CharlesI" and ask him what happened to the Celtic hoard?

Britain: "An Amateur Treasure-Seeker's Paradise"

.
Britain, due to lax legislation is now considered an amateur treasure-seeker's paradise where, according to Stefano Ambrogi of Reuters reporting on another PAS boastfest ('Britain: An amateur treasure-seeker's paradise', May 25th 2011) "unusually, government and museums approve detection and digging by general public" and "detector enthusiasts [...] are able to keep their haul":

Britain is bursting with ancient buried treasure and the masses have been bitten by the bug for digging it up — ironically with the full approval of the government and leading museums. Latest figures released by the British Museum on Wednesday showed a "massive" jump in the number of antiquities and spectacular objects classed as treasure being found by ordinary citizens with a passion for history.

"Highlights displayed at the British Museum" include "a stash of late Iron Age solid gold coins, called "staters," dating from 15 to 20 AD" (that would be the Wickham Market hoard where limited excavations - I think as yet unpublished - failed to reveal much about its burial context). "Of equal importance" (for whom?) "is a unique Roman knife handle depicting a perverted erotic scene involving two males and a female with one of the figures clutching a decapitated head. Only a handful of erotic knife handle designs have ever been found in Britain".

Apparently we are to rejoice that "In 2010, over 90,000 archaeological objects were reported to museums across the country — a 36 percent rise on 2009 — through what is known as the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS)". Well, were they? Is that REALLY what that figure of 90 000 represents? Who says so? Where is the Celtic Coin Index and the Roman Coins of Wales database? What about the Norfolk paper records entered by interns? All these contain information coming from PREVIOUS years, and not 2010 alone, don't they? In the case of the CCI some data going back to the eighteenth century well before electronic metal detectors (well before electricity in fact).

According to the article (is this based on a PAS press release?) the reason why so-called "detector enthusiasts" (why not call them what they are - artefact hunters?) were "derided by archaeologists in the past for their unscientific practices". That rather skips over what is meant by "unscientific", it is not whether they use more sophisticated (depth advantage and discriminating) electronic tools for "detecting" metal collectables, but the fact that the archaeological record is being actively mined as a source of collectables in Britain. That is what the problem is, sites and assemblages are being ripped apart and plundered for collectable geegaws, and all the public is told by an appreciative press is that we've an erotic knife handle and to a set of post-medieval false teeth to show for it. And tens of thousands of utterly trashed archaeological sites.

Along comes Michael Lewis to announce that the scheme differed markedly from the way in which excavation is regulated in the rest of Europe

which he said was "draconian" by comparison.

"Draconian" is the sort of word used by dealers and collectors. The likes of Wayne Sayles and Dave Welsh of the ACCG, William Pearlstein of the ACCP. The ACCG certainly thinks the PAS is on their side. Expressions of disdain for measures proposed by other countries in an effort to protect their archaeological sites from being trashed by artefact hunters and collectors being expressed by the PAS certainly do nothing to dispel this impression. After all as we all know, Roger Bland was a willing recipient of the ACCG "Friends of Numismatics" award.

Those so-called "draconian laws" mean that it is illegal to trash sites and treat them as geegaw mines in most other countries of the world (including on public lands in the USA). I really do not see that Britain has anything to be proud of that it is not in England, Wales and Scotland.

Here's some holes dug by artefact hunters at Wanborough and an excavation of a site after the artefact hunters have been there - do artefact hunters no longer damage sites now Britain has a PAS?

That's like making a virtue of the fact that a country may have (for example) limited anti-rape laws. Fine for male perverts, less so for the women who live there. Britain's legislation is fine for the artefact collector, ideal for the dealer (as long as its not for export) and as we have seen now widely regarded as a 'paradise' for treasure seekers. But its not protecting the archaeology. Filling museum cases with pretty dugup and ripped off geegaws is what nineteenth century antiquaries used to do. Elgin, Layard, Botta and Belzoni for example. But it is not "doing archaeology". It is not protecting sites. Paying for upwards of 800 "Treasures" unnecessarily ripped to a great degree from their (unknown because nobody investigates most of the sites) context of deposition well below plough level on otherwise unthreatened sites loudly applauded by all is costing millions yearly. I really cannot see why Lewis thinks this is anything for the Brits to boast about. What on earth do British archaeologists think they are doing just passively watching on as this sort of thing goes on?

Lauding the scheme Vaizey said: It really is incredibly effective...and it works."

Well, only until you stop parroting what you got on the self-gratulatory press release and start asking other questions. What it is actually doing is providing a platform legitimising artefact hunting, looting, and collecting as well as the antiquity trade. It is not actually mitigating the losses to the British archaeological record to any satisfactory degree, because the token big numbers do not look so impressive when you try to examine the evidence for the overall losses. The PAS (including the publicity given to events such as this) seems actually to be directly responsible for an increase in the number of people taking up this erosive and destructive hobby in Britain. It is also actively eroding public perceptions of the aims and purposes (and methods of) archaeology [and that's worldwide]. In actual fact, closer familiarity with what "metal detectorists" are up to behind the scenes (try looking in on the closed sections of their forums Mr Vaisey) reveal as clear as can be that the PAS is failing to instil "best practice" to any significant degree - and yet that was one of the government's primary aims in setting it up. In fact the PAS seems woefully unaware of the need to do anything about recent developments. Neither - most significantly in my opinion - is it providing any kind of a forum for discussion of the issues surrounding artefact hunting, collecting and the trade (licit and illicit) within archaeology, nor as archaeological "outreach" (ha ha - hollow laugh) to the general - non-collecting - public. A task for which the PAS is showing progressively less interest. I really do not see that there are grounds for the Minister's jubilation that it "works" - did they serve wine at the launch?

Where is the CBA? Where is the IFA? Where is APPAG? Where are RESCUE and The Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers? What is going on? [I can't find my Mad Hatter's Teaparty "doormouse into the teapot" vignette: I'll use this instead]
.
Thanks to Nigel Swift for putting arrows on my map, it seems to present the central dilemma so well that I decided to use it twice. How on earth can anyone in their right mind say the PAS is "working" faced with something as graphic as that? Beats me. Cue more attacks on the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter I guess...