Focus on Metal Detecting: Nigel Talks Sense

Paul, I think the ITV spokesmanunwittingly proved how the concerns about this programme are justified. He said“The series will of course refer responsibly throughout to the best practicemethods to be used by amateur archaeologists” yet seems blissfully unaware thatartefact hunters are light years from being amateur archaeologists (inter alia,they pocket what they find!) and the responsibility code is light years awayfrom best practice (he should ask English Heritage what is). Where did he getsuch ideas?

There are two fundamental points about the programme thatstill trouble me.

First, I feel the only consequence of the programme we canbe confident about will be an expansion of artefact hunting - and that iscontrary to intended policy, which comprises containment and mitigation, notexpansion. In addition, since the "responsibility" message has beenlargely ignored by the majority of existing detectorists, there are norealistic grounds for hoping most of the new entrants to the activity will actdifferently from their established colleagues.

Second, “responsible detecting” is not a satisfactoryconstituent of the Festival as it doesn't bridge the ethical and practical gulfbetween Archaeology and Artefact Hunting. The Code [of Practice for ResponsibleMetal Detecting in England and Wales] doesn’t define accepted “good practice”,only what could be extracted from the signatories. It doesn't preclude random,unstructured, unlimited, self-serving or commercial activity, all things thatprofessional archaeologists are ethically obliged to avoid and amateurarchaeologists scorn to do and in any case it isnot adopted by national or local detecting organisations. On that basis I don'tsee how it has a place in a Festival of Archaeology - which, while it may be abroad church, still has to have membership conditions else it is meaningless.Shouldn't Archaeology seek to maximise public knowledge gain, not personalobject gain, for minimum damage? Responsible detecting doesn't do that, itmerely gives a patently reluctant nod of acknowledgement towards such concepts.

I realise those views are represented in some quartersas fundamentalist and a block to "compromise" but fundamentalism isno more than conservation without unnecessary compromise, is it not? While thecompromise may have been forced upon the profession by parliament, a move toextend it to the point of "conditional acceptance" is unforced andtherefore, to me at least, incomprehensible. I feel someone has to keep bangingon about this else la différence will become progressively blurred in thepublic mind. Archaeologists may know very well how strictly bound they are bytheir own ethics, but how is a landowner to know that a man with an ultra deep-seeking detector, a personalrecommendation from Roger Bland and now a Festival tee-shirt is bound by justabout nothing?