Metal Detecting Q&A

[Steve-B]

Hi Guys

Thanks for the questions, I fully agree definately areas for concern..ok I will start with Snipers points.

Before I do, please remember that I am answering honestly from a detectorists perspective, my answers are in no way intended to offend.

Sniper, although your concerns are specific to the subject of human remians they do also crossover into the realm of Trolls concerns in repsect of just how deep should a detectorist dig.

I actually welcome questions such as these, especially in addressing Trolls closing remarks.. there are so very relevant.

There are no excuses that I would even want to think of that would explain why anyone should not have alarm bells ringing at the very sign of bone, whether they are capable of recognising human remains or not.

In my opinion it is the duty of any memember of the public, detectorist or not to act in a responsible manner, cease any and all activities and seek advice from the professionals.

There are still many areas of the hobby that cause concern not only to yourselves, but also amongst the detecting community.

The remedy for this is not especially complex and in my opinion should have been attended to long before now.

There are two hobby organisations, both of which in my opinion have been shamefully negligent in the areas of promoting 'responsible detecting' (not a popular expression in the hobby, but it is one we both understand). You only have to take a look at the website for each organisation and you will see there is very little or no in depth advice, no standards and the Code of Practice is pathetic to say the least.

Do not get me wrong here, I do not think that any amount of external pressure or 'advice' is going to remedy this problem, the cure can only come from within. If it doesnt, then I fear for the future of the hobby as I know it.

I have long been a critic of the main hobby organisation, the NCMD and quite vocally at times. Why?, well the NCMD is the one organisation that respresents the hobby at Governement level. I do not see how they can claim to do this, to negotiate on behalf of the hobby yet make no provision for the education of the people they represent, I find this wholey inconsistent with promoting good practice and thankfully I am not alone in thinking this.

The are talks taking place at the moment amomgst like minded detectorists on how best to address this problem. I do not think that they hobby needs yet another represntative body, but it does need a platform where a standard can be raised for others to aspire to.

This does actually lead on to the first of the concerns that Troll has expressed.

Detecting is not, has never been and never should be about disturbing the archaeological context, no arguements there from me.

As a dealer I am normally first point of contact with many coming into the hobby and as such I and the other dealers have a duty to promote best practice.

It really is a truism that 90% of all finds that are made while detecting are made in the first 4 to 6 inches... metal detecting is about the retrieval of non contextual finds in the disturbed top soil, it is not about excavation or disturbing the underlying archaeology and anyone that does has stepped over the line.

Despite manufacturers claims and the fishermans tales of "it was this deep" from detectorists it is true that some detectors in certain conditions are capable of detecting to a geater depth than the first 6 inches....

So how do we go about eliminating the possibility of the destruction of archaeological context?

Again, this can only be achieved by education and with the provision of information.

As I have said the first port of call is normally the dealer, which culminates with the customer taking delivery of a shiney new metal detector....

Bingo, this is the first opportunity to impart information.

To this end and with the blessing of PAS I have managed to persuede the larest UK importer and distributor of metal detectors to include a leaflet in with each and every machine that they distribute. Thy have also agreed to fund the costs of producing 5000 of these leaflets.

The leaflet is still be produced by myself and guy called Phil Dunning, another detectorist keen to promote good practice.

The opening message of the leaflet is:

"Now that you have purchased your new detector, please be aware of the responsibilites that go along with it"

It is not designed to pull any punches.

Another friend of mine has also mnanged to secure an agreement from one of the manufacturers, to include information on PAS with all the units they sell.

But this alone is not enough, as I have said it is the duty of the hobby and its organisations to promote good practice and provide comprehensive information on issues such those raised above.

I hope this reassures you in some way that there those within the hobby seeking to address these issues, early days with a lot of graft ahead of us.

The second subject you have raised is in respect of the selling of artefacts.

OK, this is not quite the simple topic as the question would indicate,as in my opinion it brings into question the whole subject of private collections and the right of the individual to not only own but to trade the artefacts that they have in their keeping. (it is also worth mentioning here that it is not just individuals that have been known to sell artefacts, but museums as well).

I know that the answers that follow are not going to be popular, but they are honest ones and it is only by my answering you in this way that you will be able to gain an understanding of this topic from a detectorists point of view and allow for a starting point to further discuss these issues, offering a political answer at this stage would not do any of us credit.

First of all where do you draw the line on private ownership of anything and everything?.. do you extend this to inlclude, antiques, stamps, fly fishing hooks. what about the house you live in and all your possesions?

Or do you just limit this to artefacts, because that is where your archaeological interest lies? Apologies if this sound flippant, but it is a valid consideration.

I personally do not have any moral problems with responsible private collecting, to me this is the key to diversity, flexibility and exchange of thought and ideas.

Responsible private collecting - to me this means that all artefacts within a private collection have been properly recorded and are cared for and stored in an approved manner.

I do not agree with the selling of unrecorded finds or items that potentially fall into the realm of the treasure act. However if I had a particular area of interest within a collection I would not be against making a purchase that would help compliment that collection and hopefully help build a better understanding of that particular area.

Also if I had a find that I felt would help compliment the collection of another, be it an individual or a museum I would not be adverse to selling an item to them. Having said that in some cases I have been known to give freely an item that was of interest to another to me personally, the hobby is not about making money.

When I make a find, I can honestly say that the monetary value of that item has never been foremost in my mind, quite oppsite in fact. To me the inherent value of an artefact is in the information that it can provide us. The most important consideration we have at present is to ensure that all detectorists become recording detectorists.

Troll, please try to remember that there a great many areas for improvement within the hobby... trying to solve them all with one blow from a sledge hammer will not have the desired effect, quite the opposite.

However, working together to encourage good practice one step at a time will lead to far more solid and longer lasting relationship. At the end of the day it is familiarity that will breed acceptance of new ideas and better practice.

It is rather late, but I do hope that I done fair justice to your questions (please forgive any typos)