Unstratified..?

I'm curious, a simple gauging of opinion..

For archaeologists. On average, how often do you think a detectorist digs below the plough layer, or disturbed soil, into the unthinkable..?

As a guide say,
One in one hundred thousand signals (.001% of the time)
One in ten thousand signals (.01% of the time)
One in a thousand signals (.1% of the time)
One in a hundred signals (1% of the time)
Less than one in a hundred signals (more than 1% of the time)

Please don't disect this post, just interested in what some of you archaeologists think. :face-huh:

Ahh.. over 30 views and silence :face-huh:. I will accept that as an answer.

[JBM]

Thats a very good point swinger I had not quite thought of it that way.:)Jerry.

Retired Aerospace manager after many years in the engineering industry..
Locating and preserving historical items for future generations to enjoy.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Swinger

Ahh.. over 30 views and silence :face-huh:. I will accept that as an answer.
or perhaps you should treat it as an indicator of a poorly-phrased question. Also you dont know if the thirty views were by archaeologists.

What kind of "detectorist" on what kind of site after getting what kind of signal? Can one actually generalise? I reckon there are some detectorists who if they get a promising signal and start digging and they've still not found the source of the signal by the time they get down to what they judge should be the base of plough level will leave off and fill the hole in, just as there are some which will stubbornly and blindly carry on digging unil they get whatever was the source of the signal out. I would guess the number of detectorists who detect responsibly like that is most likely going to be something like the proportion of those who later report their finds compared with the number who do not. But then again, as I indicated in another thread, at least some of those reporting finds seem to be digging down below plough-level.

It may be of course that some of those who do not report their finds dont dig deeper, because they dont want to damage the archaeology, or they are not allowed to by the landowner, or its a hot day and they dont want to do too much digging and backfilling.

While I accept its true that in the general run of things a metal detector will usually only penetrate those "eight inches", when you've got a big hunk of metal, or a hoard of lots of bits of metal, the signal can come from much deeper. So in my opinion, how often a detectorist is tempted to dig deeper will not only depend on how coservation-conscious they are but also depend on the type of site they are searching and what kind of finds its got in it, or indeed what kind of finds they are anticipating getting from it.

For example "using a metal detector mounted on a three-wheeled vehicle" Steve Arnold found a meteorite (one of the largest of its type) from seven feet down http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=58381&subForumID=150651&action=viewTopic&commentID=4715345&topicPage= mind you, given that meteorites are big bucks, that's probably a device of a type beyond the price range of most MDs here.

Paul Barford

[Toby]

I did not answer for a few reasons........
- It seemed to have been mentioned on a few other threads previously
- Personally I am not a big fan of the offered answer choices
- I have been very busy recently and only looked at it in passing until today
- It has been shown on other threads that there is confusion as to what is disturbed soil.
- The final line and the phrase "you archaeologists" I personally find confrontational.
- etc etc etc

I agree that the wording is pretty poor. It also talks about a definition between archaeologists and detectorists without defining further (ie pro or hobby related)

Numbers of view are not to be taken as reliable, just going forward backward on the browser can send it up quickly.

Yes I have dissected the post, which you asked not to be done, though only because the apparent silence was being taken to suggest more than just that. I imagine many more people don't post on detecting linked threads because of the types of personal arguments that often evolve (in fact many have already given this as a reason why they stopped doing so). A recent thread on the baiting section was answered very quickly and we have all seen what happened there...

If we are all trying to record and thus preserve our heritage it would be better not to ask what could be seen as loaded questions and then making assumptions on silence.

It is apparent to anybody who reads the antics on this forum (and others) that there is a level of mistrust and US vs THEM with a percentage of archaeologists and detectorist. Perhaps we should be looking at ways of reducing this number rather than highlighting and potentially adding to it.

[BAJR Host]

I'm fine with it though... as it is one of perception... not hard and fast numbers or statistics... so here you go....

I (that is me) think ( or percieve) from before I went out with detectorists.... around 10% of the time

after I have actually been out... and can roughly convey from what I have seen... around .1%

ta-da...... :D

Another day another WSI…

[charlie farnsbarnes]

quote:Ahh.. over 30 views and silence . I will accept that as an answer.

I haven't responded because I now look at the metal detecting thread very infrequently. This is because whenever I look at it, it always seems to have degenerated into a massive and personal argument. I'm not trying to be critical, but I imagine that a lot of people now avoid the whole metal detecting forum, as none of the participants will ever change their viewpoints, so the arguments just go round and round. Having said that, I'm glad that there is a specific forum to discus the subject, as previously metal-detecting arguments were taking over completely unrelated threads.

[BAJR Host]

be happy then charlie to see a lovely cuddly section of the forum...

go on.... make a stabbing guess... what do you 'think' it is interesting to see perceptions.... I would like to see some detectorist clicks... in fact.. look up.... theres a poll.

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

Just had my vote Hosty...

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Elgin]

Thanks for getting me back on the site David.

Personally, I can't see how anyone can give a an answer to this without defining what is meant by "detectorist". If its a responsible detectorist then the answer is "never". If its someone who buys his first machine this morning and goes out in the fields this afternoon, or if its one of the detectorists who are said to have never been reached by PAS liaison, then the answer is "always".

This shouldn't be taken as a controversial reply, just recognition of the obvious reality of the situation I'd have thought. If the posting of the question is in any way a response to Heritage Action saying it happens "sometimes" and a wish to establish it happens "very rarely" I really don't think it can carry much credibility unless anyone has looked over the shoulder of ten thousand detectorists and can say for sure what they do.

[JBM]

The percentages shown in the poll to date are very interesting.

Perhaps the actual number of detectorists who dig beyond the plough depth is over estimated.

As a generalisation most detectors will not reach below modern day plough depth but the owners just like to think that they will.Jerry.

Retired Aerospace manager after many years in the engineering industry..
Locating and preserving historical items for future generations to enjoy.

[Elgin]

quote:As a generalisation most detectors will not reach below modern day plough depth but the owners just like to think that they will.
Why would they like to think that?

[JBM]

Simply the competition between the various manufacturers and their individual detector users.

Do not believe all that you read about depth capabilities of some detectors.Jerry.

Retired Aerospace manager after many years in the engineering industry..
Locating and preserving historical items for future generations to enjoy.

[Paul Barford]

I believe Nigel's question was "why would they LIKE to think that?"


PS. Here's an example of what I was talking about earlier, these were found with a metal detector, look at the depth of the holes:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/popup?id=2149081&content=&page=3
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/popup?id=2149081&content=&page=4
so it does not deppend on what "make" or type of machine you've got,or what its manufacturers and users claim, but what's down under the soil.....
Paul Barford

[JBM]

Paul,You are on a different wave length.[:0]

One simple word for you Egoism.:)Jerry.

Retired Aerospace manager after many years in the engineering industry..
Locating and preserving historical items for future generations to enjoy.

[Paul Belford]

On a tangential note (thanks to Paul for the links to meteorites in Kansas) but I am curious as to why a meteorite the size of a cannonball will 'sell for up to [US] $20,000'. Surely the scrap value of the iron is considerably less and not worth extracting? I can understand the notion of curiosity value but USD 20,000 seems a lot of money for me.

Unless of course being Kansas meteorites they do in fact contain kryptonite?

[BAJR Host]

I am feeling very tangented.... meteorites in Kansas... :face-huh: perhaps I missed something.... [?]

interest in Poll?


Another day another WSI…

[vulpes]

The percentages shown in the poll are meaningless, and I fail to see what the point of this particular thread really is!? Perhaps someone would care to explain.

[Paul Belford]

Maybe it is the kryptonite?


[xx(]

[Elgin]

I'm still perplexed as to why detectorists "like to think" their machines will work deeper than the ploughsoil.

The suggested reason, that it's down to competition between manufacturers merely adds to my puzzlement since the question arises -why would the manufacturers want to claim their machines performed at great depths?

Detectorists like to think it, manufacturers all claim it, what's going on? Its irrelevant isn't it?

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Belford

I am curious as to why a meteorite the size of a cannonball will 'sell for up to [US] $20,000'These are a type of meteorite known as palasite which contain crystals of olivine in a metal matrix, they come from the junction between core and mantle of a large planetary body, and as such are a rare type of meteorite - as well as being very attractive when cut and polished. Hence their high price to collectors.

The point being that chunks of metal like this can and do produce metal detector signals from below the ploughsoil base, here we have a photo of a guy standing in a hole dug to retrieve the source of a MD signal. I dont think that is "being on a different wavelength" or egotistical, it is backing up a point made with facts, not just opinion. If trying to seek a basis in facts for my opinions makes me on a "different wavelength" from others taking part in this discussion, then so be it, but to me discussion seems pointless otherwise.

Paul Barford
.