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?
.