Saturday 24 August 2013

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
  

9 comments:

Detecting Diva said...

Mr. Barford-

I know you are aware The Searcher Magazine is read in different countries, not just in the UK. Obviously, that would mean people from different countries are allowed to submit their metal detecting stories, not just people from the UK---are you following me so far??

Metal detecting laws and ethics, although similar, are not the same in all countries. Therefore, using common sense when interpreting a magazine that is about the hobby of metal detecting, and not just about metal detecting in the UK might prove helpful to you in the future.

The cover depicts a photo of myself, wielding your favorite machine, dressed in mismatching camouflage, while standing in a friends yard in New York State. I don't know what this "pasture" is that your going on about, as in the United States, the only time the word pasture is used is if you are referring to sheep, or some other grazing farm animal, and there are no farms to speak of in my vicinity.

Since its clear you did not bother to read the magazine before you went off on your "Rage against the Machine" rant, I will take the low road and not bother to read up on your English "pasture" either.

If you had perused the magazine, you might have noticed the story I submitted about detecting and camouflage, particularly the utilitarian value of camo pants, which went along with the cover photo.

It is a well-known fact in detecting circles that I have a pet peeve with men out metal detecting in mismatching camouflage clothing. It confuses the wildlife, and is akin to wearing stripes with plaids.

And yes, the attention was grand. I am still basking in the afterglow of my "officially scandalous" status, and thrilled to have you directing more traffic to my blog. Thanks a bunch!

-Allyson Cohen
The Detecting Diva

Paul Barford said...

Please read the title of the article I was talking about "detecting ENGLISH pasture".

It was written by Gordon Heritage, from Milton Keynes, specifically about detecting in the UK, which is where the magazine is published and largely marketed. It is also where there IS a proper archaeological record damaged by metal detecting and a proper (and country-specific) code of conduct aiming to reduce that damage, totally ignored in Mr Heritage's text.

This was not a text about the clothing worn to hoik stuff from pasture, still less the 'fashion sense' of metal detectorists or lack of it, nor - despite what Dick Stout asserts - was the text you 'did not bother to read' about you, ms Cohen.

So I really do not see why you try to make out it is, instead of actually commenting on what the real subject is.

You carry on discussing 'stripes and plaid', I'll carry on discussing the effects of artefact hunting on the fragile and finite archaeological resource which I think is the more important issue on which to focus. Sorry you do not see it that way.

Paul Barford said...

For those that missed it, here's Ms Cohen trying to "make sense" of my earlier comments on detecting pasture: http://detectingdiva.com/?p=1330

What is the point of trying to discuss anything sensibly with people who are so superficial, uninformed and flippant?

Anonymous said...

Hoisted by her own petard: saying judge The Searcher through the lens of laws beyond the shores of Britain is saying keep in mind that in most countries it's a magazine for and about criminals.

Paul Barford said...

Well, indeed, like a copy read in Poland.

I really don't know what she's on about, according to her "take" on things, it only matters when it's currently got SHEEP on it (So we'll have no pasture in Poland either as Poles don't eat sheep much). So metal detecting on permanent grassland is OK then as long as there are no sheep on it to make the archaeology underground more sensitive? An odd bit of tekkie logic if you ask me.

But making jokes about how people "look" seems to be the limit of the "thinking" many of them over in the US are doing.

Detecting Diva said...

Back in the 1600's, five of my ancestors boarded this little ship called the Mayflower (you may have heard of it), and eventually settled here.

Every time I find a colonial shoe buckle, I think to myself--boy, those folks sure wore funny looking clothing, then I chuckle out loud. So I guess your opinion of many of us over in the US being limited to making jokes about how people look would be correct.

So...um...whatever. I've got a field to hunt. Looking forward to responding to more of your animosity later. I'm starting to grow quite fond of you. Toodles!

Paul Barford said...

five of 'em eh? I thought you were searching cellars today...

Detecting Diva said...

Yes, five of the 102 passengers were my ancestors. Not hunting cellars, hunting "Pasture" today. Hugs!

Paul Barford said...

This is getting like something from "Deliverance". I'm writing about detecting on pasture (watch the lips), but http://detectingdiva.com/?p=1446#&panel1-1:
"He obviously didn’t take the time to read the accompanying story that went with the cover photo, and because there was some greenery in the photo background, he assumed The Searcher was trying to promote detecting in “Pasture”."
Could be something to do with the socking big headline to the right of the photo... don't ya think Ms Cohen? If that was not the intent I suggest taking it out on the magazine's editor, and not me.

BTW - Grass grows along, not up. The stuff that grows up behind people are what we in England call "trees" and "bushes". Whether or not they have "sheep" in them.

To be honest, I am not really interested in articles on fashion, so not really all that interested in reading an article about mismatched camo clothing whether or not accessorised with a metal detecting pouch. Sort of like the nerdy stuff about coil type and size and the best settings for such-and-such soil, it's not what gets me going.

Ms Cohen, since you don't like reading what's on my blog, just STOP READING IT, nobody's making you. Give your eyes a rest!!

You'd also look a bit less of a simpleton if you'd drop the insulting name calling.

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.