Hmmm, well this is Cliff Bradshaw, discoverer of the Ringlemere Gold Cup, and he got loads of publicity (see Google).

He discovered it by deliberately detecting on a "low mound" in the middle of a potato field that he recognised as probably prehistoric. It turned out to be a mostly ploughed out barrow that would have originally been one of the very largest in southern England....

Oh, and he and the farmer shared a reward of £250,000...

Diddums indeed. In fact so far as I'm concerned he can shove his metal detector.

In order to obviate the need for an endless stream of detectorists to come here saying the figures are wrong and for TMA members to start dying of boredom -

Gents,
YES we know you dispute the figures.. And d'you know, we did sort of anticipate that whatever the figures cited they would be attacked!

Which is why -

a.) As we fully explained, the figures are deliberately conservative relative to the evidence (in multiple ways).

b.) We wrote that - "Since what happens in the fields is essentially a secret known only to each individual detectorist, no-one can claim to know for certain the true figures or suggest any particular estimate is right or wrong.
Consequently, our purpose in presenting this counter is to illustrate to the public in a clear way that even on the basis of the lowest likely estimates the rate of erosion of the finite resource is unacceptable – and is happening in Britain and almost nowhere else. The counter may or may not be a precise reflection of the rate of depletion. The broad picture it paints, of millions of artefacts being progressively removed and society being deprived of the associated knowledge of its past, is certainly accurate."

So please, no more "the figures are wrong". Its pointless. You all know what "the field has been hammered" means - the artefactual record has been eroded out of existence. The Counter simply reflects that process over rather a lot of fields and more than three decades - and as such performs two long-overdue functions - informing the public of the erosion of its communal resource in an unequivocal way and holding a mirror up to your faces.

Is it not our search for knowledge, and the understanding knowledge gives us about ourselves and our history, that should guide us here? And is it not the case that sensible and caring people will not want to see any aspect of our history damaged or lost through irresponsible practices? Surely it is as much a crime against our search for knowledge to let a burial site and it's contents be lost forever through neglect as it is to rip it apart in the name of archaeological investigation. And is it not as much a crime to remove from a field a broach or a coin without proper records as it is to let that broach or coin disappear from the store of human knowledge because no-one has the time or the money to go out and find it?

Seems to me that what we're really arguing about is not whether people should or should not uncover more of our history it is whether, in the process of uncovering that history, more of the history is lost than saved. Responsible people, whether archaeologist, conservator or detectorist, know full-well that it's not just the object that is important, it's everything associated with it that is of equal or greater value (in terms of knowledge that is). We can bang each other's heads against the wall until the end of time but if we accept that what is of real value is knowledge and understanding about ourselves and our history then surely it shouldn't be too difficult to find a way to pull in the same direction.

From Beowulf: In the gloom the gold gathers the light against it. The light here, perhaps, is not the cheep light of glittering metal but the brighter light of knowledge.

I see PAS has had a go at Heritage Action (you know, the one outside organisation that has run a consistent campaign urging detectorists and landowners to support them, and still does).

Our counter is "speculative" apparently. Hmmmm, well at least they didn't dare say its wrong (half an artefact per detectorist per week! They'd have a job!) and they didn't deny the accuracy of the "broad picture" it paints, which is its stated sole purpose.

Oh, and we're "naive" to think banning, like Ireland, is a viable option! Great PAS, but we haven't proposed that. We've proposed LICENSING. Like NORTHERN IRELAND! I'd be obliged if you'd read what we have said before saying members of the public who are concerned about the resource are naive.

Finally, we seem to be considered at fault for not saying the Scheme is a rip-roaring success. Well I'm sorry, but we're just ordinary people and taxpayers with a main focus on resource conservation. Unlike both detectorists and PAS we have no vested interest in claiming everything is going just fine. Its been ten years and most detectorists entirely ignore PAS. That's fact. If we wish to say that's long enough and that something new needs to be done - we will.

Before this thread slips into obscurity I'd like to respond to this (that went unchallenged and shouldn't have) -

Cymap said:
"I think you counter should actually say 9,000,000+ artifacts recovered and saved from destruction."

This is an iteration of a claim made by most detectorists, to the effect that ploughing and chemicals are destroying artefacts and detectorists are rendering a public service by "rescuing them". The following should be said:

The official view is that this problem is neither widespread enough nor fast enough to justify mass, random, unstructured removal of bits of the resource. PAS, EH, CBA etc don't say they support detecting in general because it is "rescue archaeology". Only detectorists and their supporters make such a claim.

To be believable, "rescuing on behalf of the public" would require the public to see a need for it, for the public's official bodies to be convinced it was needed, for them to specify the way it was done and for the artefacts and knowledge to be delivered to the public. That's not what happens.

So no, the counter shouldn't actually say 9,000,000+ artifacts recovered and saved from destruction" it should say what it says, and we'd have been perfectly justified if we'd added the word "selfishly".

(The reason I revisited this was because just today, on a detectorists' forum near here, I notice we have someone bemoaning the lack of finds on a field and saying yes, he'll certainly follow the helpful advice of his fellow forum-user - to offer to pay for the farmer's fuel if he'll go over it with a deeper plough to bring the finds up. Nice. )

Digging for your own benefit, either for recreation or profit If and where they see such a need then they would y would no doubt be orists "rescuing" everything rate and

May I suggest that the Heritage Action metal detecting counter plays a sound when the counter changes.

Either

1. A cash register ring

0r

2. A lavatory flushing

depending on the viewpoint of the user?

[Hey keymar ? Please cool it on the Enter key. Just type it in with Enter for paras. I want to read your stuff but sometimes it's hard.]

[Hey goffik ? You are not being constructive. Constructive comments only please (like mine above) and no hate. Nigel can look after himself.]