Candice Jarman, among other things, reckons that... Mr Barford's response shows just how little this self-proclaimed 'expert' (but in reality total ignoramus) knows about metal detecting.Although I have spent a fair amount of time for several decades trying to understand the various aspects of this hobby and those who do it, there is of course a great deal I would still like to learn straight from their own words.
Artefact hunting with metal detectors is an erosive form of exploitation of the archaeological record which is the common heritage of everybody, not just individuals who want to take bits of it away for private entertainment and profit. It therefore follows that everybody should be fully informed about this type of artefact hunting, who does it, how and why, and more to the point what its actual effects (both positive and negative) on the archaeological record are. To what degree are we informed about that? The metal detecting forums are for the most part closed access, members-only, so one has to register first with them before being able to see what goes on behind their closed doors. What have they got to hide? (Please register with one and see). There are books and promotional videos as well. I'd like to look at one of the latter here, Steve Timewell's Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (2008) which is currently available on YouTube. This purports to cover all the issues. Quite significant however are the parts of the issues surrounding the exploitation of archaeological sites as a source of collectables for private entertainment and profit which they do not cover, can you spot them?
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 1), Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 2),
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 3) what you can expect to find... [Paul Murawski] 6:39 - "Collection of interesting and valuable finds".
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 4) at 0:25 "95% of metal detecting is based on this kind of item" (sic) - but they are still artefacts aren't they? What is not collectable still may be used as archaeological evidence if we know where it came from and in what relationships with other material, but in most cases this "95%" never gets seen by the PAS FLO. Most of it gets chucked away well before that stage. Then a boring bit on beach detecting - "some people make a living out of it".
I think it is worth noting what Norfolk Wolf lets slip in this segment (at 4:20):
"When I get on the field I'm looking for ... well I'l be hearing nails, oi'm looking fer pottery, I'm looking for oystershells, this is a sure sign of habitation. Once you've found this po'ery and the naily areas, then you can go to town,Let us consider whether Norfolk Wolf (John Lynne) has a huge collection of ancient nails to rival that which the excavation of that site would produce? Does he have boxes and boxes of pottery and oystershells systematically collected and catalogued from these sites, or did he just cherry pick the archaeological finds, keeping just the most collectable non-ferrous artefacts? There is a very clear difference between what can be recorded about a site from what a collector takes from it when looking for geegaws to add to a collection, and what an archaeologist gathers as part of the investigative process. This is a fundamental reason why the data recorded as a result of artefact hunting can in no way be treated as archaeological data and severely restricts their use for archaeological (and many other) purposes.
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 5) Accessories... then (6:43) "legal responsibilities". (8:35, "there's also a code of conduct to protect the reputation of the hobby" - sic!) - NB this is the NCMD and FID codes ! The key point discussed (9:27) is "filling in the holes" (!)
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 6)
0:20 hobby "really rewarding financially"... but then mostly glib PAS fluff. Yuk. This continues on:
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 7) Note that what Trevor Austin says about sites found by artefact hunting and collecting through detector use will NOT be protected from further exploitation appears under the heading (0:29 of the previous part) "it is vital that our heritage is protected..."
Then the obligatory disclaimer, (1:06): "you do get the odd nighthawker [...] these are not detectorists; these are just crooks, they're out for the money and they give the detecting fraternity a bad name. I've got no time for them whatsoever" (it is a good job, isn't it that a certain page with anecdotes about his own beginnings in artefact hunting has gone from Norfolk Wolf's now-defunct website). Then there is "joining a club" and (6:50) Commercial artefact hunting rallies ("on prime sites" - 7:06). [Norman Smith commercial rally organizer who makes no money for hisself from this you understand ... 9:01].
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 8) [2:30 - 4:52 Dave Evans about recording on commercial artefact hunting rallies].
Storing and cleaning finds: (6:05) "it won't be long before you are finding all manner of things and some of them could be of considerable value".
(6:12) "You can have your own museum display in your own home". Note that what is shown is Lincoln Museum's cases, not a well-displayed and curated private collection, could they not find one to film? Also I note that they did not add "you could donate the most important of your finds to the museum".
Worth having a look at and a think about, ignore the tiresome muzak and repetitive use of the same settings and shots.