Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Artefact Hunting on English Pasture

A few weeks ago tekkies were moaning that I commented on the cover of a recent copy of  Searcher magazine where a detectorist was depicted detecting pasture, advertising an article on the subject. The person concerned basked in the attention ('I am Officially Scandalous!')  and made light of the issues about detecting on pasture  It is however worth taking a look at the article itself, about  "field techniques, tips to increase your finds' (sic) rate on pasture". As is (should be) well-known, the official Code of Responsible metal Detecting in England and Wales talks of staying off undisturbed grasslands, where archaeologically significant patterns of finds may be in the soil just under the grassroots, especially if there are earthworks here such as ridge-and-furrow ploughing. The author of the article however, TV detectorist Gordon Heritage, dismisses all that flatly. He reckons the Code has got it all wrong. "I've been detecting pasture for most of my detecting life, I started off way back in the 1970s" he proudly announces ("they can't touch you for it"?) . He then discusses different kinds of pasture in his region (Milton Keyes), mixing things up a little, and then skipping across the whole issue of what lies beneath the surface of unploughed sites (his section on "historic pasture" implies nothing at all).

In the section "How to search pasture" (p. 19-20: there is none on "when not to...") we read that the

"first thing to do is determine when the field was last ploughed (if ever) by checking the edge of the field for signs of ploughing (sic) and then dig (sic) a test hole. Most soils will include gravels (sic) and ploughing will mix these throughout the topsoil on a pasture field time will cause these aggregates (sic) to settle to a greater depth in a concentrated deposit and will contain all the artefacts contained in the last ploughing".

He then goes on to say that any finds in the layer of soil above post-date the latest ploughing. So in other words he is describing soil effects on the traces of human activity which lead to the formation of at least two superimposed layers containing different finds assemblages each related to human activity at different times in the past on the site - so in other words that is archaeological stratigraphy then, isn't it? He then struggles with working out what's happening on these fields and cannot grasp apparently why flood plains are called flood plains (eventually hitting on the notion of alluvium). Frankly, I think a lot of tekkie headache would be avoided by these folk looking at some books on soil science and geomorphology...  They might even learn the proper terms for what it is they are talking about and thus be able to express their ideas with more precision.

So anyway (page 20), now the tekkie has decided to collect artefacts buried in an archaeological layer well below the other archaeological layers on that site, the next issue is how to hoik them out. Gordon Heritage tells them: "once you know the depth of the gravel" (go for it Gordon, why let a few centuries of lying in an undisturbed archaeological layer stop you?) you "need to select a detector and coil best suited for the conditions". So, what he's saying is: if the finds are deep within the archaeological layers, you need a really deep-seeking detector to hoik them out. ("As the depths of topsoil get greater, you will need to search deeper" - the idea of leaving stratified archaeological material where it is seems not to be being considered as an option). We then have the nerdy details about what coils on what machines have allowed this veteran digger-upper to help him "find the deepest targets I have ever recovered" from pasture land. And of course the right quality spade for deeper digging and making a "nice divot". .

On page 21 there is a telling paragraph on "pasture politics". The author says:

"an article on pasture detecting would not be complete without at least touching on the political issues raised by some sections of the archaeological community"

Hmmm. The issues raised are conservation issues, hoiking stuff out of deeply-buried stratified deposits is not a "political issue raised by some sections of the archaeological community", it is destroying archaeological stratification. Pure and simple destruction. That is not half as much a political issue as it jolly well should be. The PAS for example is no doubt planning to stay silent about the publication of this article in its favourite detecting mag, "the Searcher". You know, that PAS that gobbles up millions of pounds annually to do archaeological outreach and instil best practice. I would say if they just let this article pass without comment, they are taking public money under false pretences. Wouldn't you?

According to the author of this text tekkies themselves have neglected the "political" (sic) battle  which he claims has left them "open to criticism when searching pasture" (see the post below this for a more detailed commentary on what he said). He argues that sites under pasture, even earthwork sites should "remain available for us to search" for hoikable collectables to take away.  "As long as you properly record your finds, there is nothing wrong with detecting pasture". It is not very clear what he considers to be "proper recording" for somebody digging random loose finds out of stratified archaeological deposits at depth. He claims not to see "any valid argument" for not artefact hunting on such sites. That's probably because  he refuses to think about it and talk with those who do.

This Searcher article is not, by any measure, an exposition of "responsible detecting". 

Hat tip, thanks to Nigel Swift for a copy of "Searcher" magazine