I know everyone loves to hear about a good metal detecting find, but it's even better when you can find something for someone else that is especially near and dear to them...

Yesterday, a Mr. Adams called to ask if I could help find his wife's white gold 2 carat diamond wedding ring that had been lost about a month ago. His young grandchild somehow got his wife's jewelry bag, took it outside, and managed to scatter jewelry all over the large country yard while playing. The couple didn't even know it had happened until the next day when the Mrs. Adams accidentally found a watch and other jewelry in several areas of the yard. Luckily, the couple's steady searching over the next few weeks allowed them to find everything - that is, everything except her 2 carat diamond engagement ring. It had been in the bag with her matching white gold wedding band, which was found during their search. The husband, who is a deputy sheriff, then happened to see one of our club's newsletters and contacted me.

I asked club member Robert DeBate to help, and we went this morning to search for the ring. Mr. Adams had marked areas in the yard where the other jewelry had been found, and had even gridded the area with string. Unfortunately, one large area had been used as a burn pile area both before and after the ring had been lost. It was mostly bare dirt and contained a good deal of metallic trash.

Robert put a small coil on his Fisher 1266 and dived into the trashy area. I decided to give my very old and trusty Golden Sabre with notch discrimination a try. I took the matching wedding band and notched it within the accept mode. That would allow me to hear ONLY the ring. I began at the edge of the search area and worked the grid pattern toward the burn area. Reaching that area in about 10 minutes, I got a loud signal just about in the middle of the burn area. I looked at the ash-covered ground, but didn't see anything at first. Then waving the detector over the spot, I came to barely make out the outline of a black circle in the ashes. It was the ring, completely blackened from a fire, but otherwise in perfect shape.

Needless to say, Mrs. Adams was thrilled, as were Robert and I. She said her first order of business was a visit to the jeweler to get the ring cleaned and polished back to its original look. She and her husband will attend the club's next meeting to show off the ring, and issue an official thank you to the club and our hobby. The ring will be a feature in our February newsletter.

Below I have attached some photos. The first photo is of the blackened ring. The large stone on the top is 1-1/3 carat. with shoulder and side diamonds on both sides that bring the total weight to 2 carats. The second photo is Mrs. Adams holding the ring, and the third photo is of me, a very happy and satisfied hunter, holding the ring.

I can only hope that you enjoyed your day as much as Mr. and Mrs. Adams, Robert, and I did....

Danny Brown, Pelican Relic and Recovery Association, Baton Rouge, LA.

I've taken to writing in defense of having a recreation which is greatly misunderstood by many and unfairly threatened and discriminated against by most of the archeological community world-wide. More specifically I write about a recreation called metal detecting.

So what is the recreation of metal detecting all about? To me it has been more than just a simple outdoor activity, it's a 44 year continuing journey to satisfy an intense desire to know first-hand my country's history, more importantly the people (our ancestors) who lived it and created it. It's the excitement of recovering something lost in the ground for centuries and knowing you are first person since the last to touch it again... My link to the past and the education it provides. We all inherited our past and no one person or group has the right to keep anyone from discovering it in a responsible manner and learning from it.

Many in the misinformed general public unfortunately tend to view we Detectorists as "scavengers", "looters", "grubbers", "pot hunters", "thieves", and greedy "treasure hunters". Fact is a lot of people are jealous of the recreation simply because they can't stand to see anyone profit from anything, even if it's one penny at a time. Many of us are just simply finding and collecting lost coins. In the many years I've enjoyed researching huntsites and operating a metal detector, the worth of anything found collectively would never equal the expense of owning the equipment necessary to do so. It's never been about profit for me in my pursuit of history. It's been about the rewards of educating myself and others about the items found and giving myself some quality time outdoors. It's also about rescuing these pieces of history from the ravages of time and acid rain destruction. In the years I've enjoyed my recreation, I've actually witnessed an accelerated degradation to metal finds. It's about time spent sharing friendship and comradery with people of similar ideals. It's honor and respect and returning a precious lost heirloom to someone who asked for your help and you never ask for anything in return. It's about volunteering our time to help law enforcement at crime scenes or to help anyone in need of our skills.

The only monetary profit I ever gained from my recreation was to write a book to help others enjoy the same recreation. The profits went directly into providing a living for my family when employment was just not enough. The true profit and satisfaction was knowing I taught others to use their equipment well and promote responsible use of a metal detector. Undoubtably, there are some of us who would conceal a significant find from the rightful owner or do something illegal as a means to their end... But this is unfortunately human nature and this behavior is not exclusive to any recreation or our critics.

On a more personal level, the rewards of strenuous exercise and fresh air provided by this recreation far exceed the benefits of any pharmaceutical. Since childhood, I've had trouble controlling blood glucose levels. I have an occupation that confines me to a drawing board and in later years, a computer. Any weekend spent walking miles in the sunshine outdoors, bending over, kneeling, retrieving targets and standing back up again to do it all again countless times has a significant effect on glucose levels no pill or injection can compete with. My recreation is probably the reason why I'm still here to write this.

For years, our detractors have continuously fought to restrict our rights and want eventually to make our recreation become illegal and give themselves exclusive rights to dig and touch OUR history. During this time, the majority of the archeological community has consumed precious public resources trying to eliminate our recreation and influence lawmakers. Many legislators are finally realizing we Detectorists are not the monster threat they were lead to believe. Currently a few lawmakers are seeing this "inquisition" as a self-preservation tactic to insure a livelihood. If our critics were to succeed, not only will they deny people a healthy lifestyle, they will destroy American metal detector manufacturers and the employment they provide.

Without metal detectors, the archeological community would not have the major discoveries made recently in Great Britain such as the largest cache of Saxon gold artifacts in modern time. Even before this grand discovery, the English government adeptly recognized the significance of the metal detectorist as an important resource... The British government has intelligently resorted to rewarding their responsible detectorists rather than prosecute them. They financially compensate the landowner and detectorist for the value of the find so it can be preserved for public view for ALL to appreciate and learn from. If the item has been found not to be a major significance, they allow the finder to simply keep what they found. A fair system we should adopt in the USA to get significant finds into daylight more quickly. Without this cooperation we shorten precious time in which great discoveries can be made. Conventional archeology in the U.S. today cannot compete with powerful swift commercial land development. Wait long enough and nature has a way of reclaiming historical artifacts permanently. Punishing a people's recreation is not the means to making great strides in archeology.

However, not all archeologists are our detractors, at least not the progressive few. Significant history changing data was gathered at the battle site of Little Big Horn because a few forward thinking archeologists realized they could work with detectorists and harness our skill for the good of all. In effect, they made their own occupation easier, faster, and promoted good will instead of destroying it. The volunteer detectorists I'm sure made the project significantly less costly as well. Many of us, myself included, would be honored to serve on any project like that. This was a small step in the right direction, why is there not more of this happening today?

In summation, I hope these words help to convince everyone we need to work together and not waste time rescuing our history. When I became sixteen years old, I started in metal detecting because I knew my family's financial resources would never support the extended education necessary for my life's desire of becoming an Archeologist... Now you know why our "recreation" is so important to everyone.

Subject: Metal Detecting Bill: Please forward as a group message to all senators

To: Dan.Seum@lrc.ky.gov

Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 12:38 PM

Dear Senator Seum

My family and I wish to thank you for advocating for those who enjoy recreational metal detecting, by sponsoring the bill, shortly to be voted on, that would open up state parks to this healthy and wholesome activity. I have been active in metal detecting since 1975, later to be joined by my wife Fran and still later by my sons Dennis and Ian. I can't tell you how many quality family hours we spent together combing the great outdoors and discovering what those that came before us had left behind. When my family goes on vacation, we always pack our metal detectors in the car. If some place does not allow metal detecting my family doesn't go there.

Human history is every where and I understand the importance of preserving the historical record and the relevance that artifact context has, but the fact is that there are very few primary sites, not already on the National Registry. The reason for this is that most sites, not already registered have been disturbed by human activity such as landscaping, farming or construction or any other movement of the earth. Once the ground has been disturbed, artifacts still survive, but their context is no longer reliable, and using artifact context in such situations will yield bogus information.

Nobody is better equipped to find metal artifacts than the metal detectorist, and unlike the state Archaeologists, the detectorist does not cost the taxpayer one penny. If not threatened with exclusion from secondary and tertiary sites, the detectorist would be more than happy to partner with and cooperate with the Archaeologists. The prudent way to proceed would be to model a metal detecting policy after what has worked so well in Great Britain. Approximately 90% of the metal artifacts in British Museums have been discovered by metal detectorists. The finder, turns in the discovered artifact, where it is evaluated for it's uniqueness, and relevant information regarding its discovery is obtained. The artifact is then either returned to the finder, or purchased by the government for display. Fair market value is given if the artifact is purchased. This is a win/win situation.

Thank you for your support and please share this correspondence with those that will be voting on your bill....

Sincerely, Harold S. Lowenfels

Hi Ms. Munks,

My name is Dick Stout, and I have been involved with the metal detecting pastime now for over 30 years. I have worked for a major metal detector manufacturer, and have penned three related books. I also founded and was the first president of the Federation of Metal Detector and Archaeological Clubs, Inc..

The recent article concerning Mathew Zembo’s portrayal of the metal detecting community as “pot hunters” is presumptuous to the say the least. I can assure you that more archaeological sites have been discovered “because” of the metal detecting hobbyist, than those in the academic community who think they have the right to every inch of ground in the country because of their degree, or supposed higher education.

Of course every inch of ground may well hold historical treasures, but will they ever be found or will they simply decay and be lost forever? I encourage you to read the following, and then decide the merits of our pastime, and our right to enjoy it without being unfairly labeled as pot robbers.

http://www.johnwinter.net/jw/2011/11/metal-detecting-the-hobby-and-its-detractors-2/

Thank you for listening to our side,

Dick Stout/www.StoutStandards.com

Metal Detecting – The Hobby and its Detractors

Metal detecting is a truly fascinating hobby, which is enjoyed by people of all ages and from many different backgrounds. It is not only a stimulating recreational pursuit, however, it is also a source of valuable information, which is adding very considerably to our knowledge of the past. In fact, the hobby’s contribution has a particular significance. It provides information about lost and discarded items, which otherwise would never be known. Importantly, it rescues these items from hostile environments that threaten their rapid destruction.

Not so, argue the hobby’s detractors. Metal detecting is depleting the archaeological pool and resulting in the loss of contextual information. Detectorists are reluctant to record their finds, and the hobby’s contribution to knowledge is minimal. Interest in the hobby is driven primarily by financial gain.

So, what is the reality of the situation? Let us consider the issues raised, starting with the ‘archaeological pool’ and its ‘depletion’.

In the context of metal detecting, the ‘archaeological pool’ is the body of small man-made items in the ground, which have been lost, discarded or buried. Some of them have the potential to add to our knowledge of the past, but while they remain undiscovered they contribute nothing. It is only when they are recovered, whether by metal detectorists, archaeologists or members of the general public, that they provide any information at all. However, the great majority of items in this pool will only ever be discovered as a result of metal detectorists pursuing their hobby. Furthermore, while they remain in the ground they are exposed to a very severe risk of destruction. The emotive phrase, ‘depleting the archaeological pool’, is therefore entirely misleading, because it implies a net loss to our knowledge, as opposed to a net gain. Far from taking anything away, detectorists are adding to our knowledge by discovering and recording material that otherwise would have been lost forever. In fact, the reality of the situation is far better expressed, if the negative and propagandist, ‘depleting the archaeological pool’, is replaced with the more meaningful, ‘rescuing our material heritage’.

And ‘rescuing’ is the operative word. Few people outside archaeology and the metal-detecting hobby have any appreciation of the rate at which our undiscovered material heritage is being destroyed. The vast majority of metallic objects that remain in the ground are condemned to certain destruction as a result of the intensive agricultural practices and land development that are associated with modern living.

Agrochemicals, for example, will completely destroy a base-metal object within a few years of being in the ground. Many ancient coins and artefacts will have survived in good condition in the soil for nearly two millennia, only to be completely destroyed in the last fifty years.

The two modern coins shown below are of bronze, and of a type that was struck between 1971 and 1981. The upper coin is in as-struck condition. The lower coin is a metal-detecting find made in the early 1990s. It was probably in the ground for less than twenty years, but is so severely damaged by chemical attack that it is not even possible to read the date.

Chemicals, however, are not the only threat faced by objects in the ground. The mechanisation of almost every aspect of agriculture makes long-term survival of any object within ploughsoil virtually impossible. Pre-historic stone implements and metallic objects are equally vulnerable. Even the smallest and lightest of items are cut to pieces, and any information they might have yielded is lost forever. The medieval silver coins shown below are all less than 20 mm diameter, but nothing escapes the high-speed blades of modern cultivators.

And it is not only in the fields that mechanisation is taking its toll. Rivers and other waterways are being dredged to increasingly greater depths in order to improve land drainage. The consequence of this is that many fords and archaeological structures are being destroyed because they present obstacles to flood water. Artefacts and coins are disturbed from these safe environments, and become damaged by gravels and rocks as they are carried downstream.

In the light of the conditions described above, it is instructive to consider a hypothetical situation. A member of the public is walking across a field and notices a Roman brooch protruding from the soil. Should he retrieve it or leave it in the ground? If he retrieves it, it can be photographed, measured, weighed, analysed, conserved and recorded. If he leaves it in the ground, its identity and details will never be known, and it will probably be destroyed in a short space of time when the field is ploughed and sprayed.

If you believe that the responsible course of action is to leave the brooch in the ground, join the hobby’s detractors, and you will find yourself amongst like-minded people. However, if you believe that it is better to retrieve the brooch, ask yourself this question. What makes this accidentally discovered brooch any different to all the other brooches, coins and artefacts that are discovered with the aid of a metal detector?

Before moving on to the next issue, ‘loss of contextual information’, it is appropriate to draw attention to an important point regarding the respective modi operandi of archaeology and metal detecting. Archaeologists usually focus their attention on sites of intensive past human activity, whereas hobbyists search vastly greater areas, the majority of which will have seen only limited activity. The contribution that each group makes to our knowledge of the past is consequently of a different, but complementary nature.

Context, from an archaeological perspective, relates to the depth and relative positions of buried objects in an undisturbed environment, and it provides valuable information about their age and use. The key phrase, however, is ‘in an undisturbed environment’. The vast majority of land searched by metal detectorists is cultivated agricultural land, and the objects recovered are from the ploughsoil. Their depth and precise position within the ground are very unlikely to have any significance, but nevertheless their general location plays an important part in contributing to our knowledge of the past. The distribution patterns of individually lost objects, for example, can shed light on aspects of our history that conventional archaeology is not able to illuminate. The ‘horizontal context’, as it has been described, can make a unique contribution.

So, on what basis do the detractors make their claim that metal detecting results in a ‘loss of contextual information’? As already indicated, the vast majority of land searched by detectorists either is, or has previously been, under cultivation. This can therefore be eliminated as a potential area of ‘risk’. Similarly, all archaeological sites that have ‘Scheduled Monument’ status, and those that are otherwise protected by legislation, are out-of-bounds to the hobby, so they, too, can be eliminated. And excavated spoil from land development projects can hardly justify their concern.

The land that remains (predominantly undisturbed pasture) is a very small proportion of the total that is detected, and any unknown archaeological sites that exist on it will, by statistical probability, represent only a small fraction of the area. The actual risk of unwittingly disturbing items in an archaeological context is therefore extremely low. Notwithstanding this minimal risk, all responsible hobbyists detect in accordance with codes of practice that address this situation to ensure that the maximum amount of information is preserved. The reality is that archaeological sites accidentally discovered as a result of metal detecting are sites that would probably never otherwise have been discovered.

To realise their potential in providing information about our past, it is, of course, not only important to rescue objects from their hostile environment, but also to ensure that they are recorded and published. By doing so, details of the object are available for study, both in their own right, and in the context of related items and locations.

A coin, for example, may provide evidence of a hitherto unknown moneyer, like the silver penny of Stephen illustrated above. The collective recording of many coins, which individually might be insignificant, can establish where and under whose authority they were struck, their area of circulation, and even tribal boundaries. Analysis of findspots of Celtic and early Anglo-Saxon coins in England, for example, has significantly increased our understanding of these periods of our history.

The facilities available for recording finds made in the UK are probably the best in the world. The UK Detector Finds Database (UKDFD) offers detectorists a hobby-based self-recording scheme, and the government-sponsored Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) provides recording via a network of Finds Liaison Officers. In addition, the Celtic Coin Index (CCI) and the Early Medieval Corpus (EMC) provide facilities for the recording of coins from these two periods. All these databases are online and freely accessible to the public, and the content of all of them owes a great deal to the metal-detecting hobby.

The publication of detecting finds on the Internet, however, is only one aspect of the hobby’s contribution to knowledge. Long before the Internet became available, detecting finds were being recorded and published by more conventional means, and these continue to play an important role. Authors from within the hobby have played a significant part in this process, and many others have acknowledged the contribution that metal detecting has made.

So, with hundreds of thousands of individual detector-find records in the public domain, and every indication that the rate of recording is increasing, how do the hobby’s detractors come to the conclusion that ‘detectorists are reluctant to record their finds’? The answer is that they don’t!

A conclusion is, by definition, “an opinion formed after considering the relevant facts or evidence”. The hobby’s detractors are not concerned with considering relevant facts or evidence; they are concerned only with achieving their objective of seeing the introduction of legislation to restrict the hobby. Accordingly, they fabricate ludicrous statistics to support their aims and mislead those, particularly legislators, who are not conversant with the facts. Nowhere is this more apparent than in their claims regarding the numbers of ‘recordable finds’ made by detectorists.

Everything that is dug is, of course, recordable, including all the shotgun cartridges, drink-can pull-tabs and irregular, nondescript fragments of metal that form the vast majority of ‘finds’ made by the detectorist. It is absurd to suggest that resources should be wasted recording material that will add nothing to our knowledge, and, as everyone involved with recording detectorists’ finds knows, there is a diverse range of material that falls into this category.

The ratio of junk to worthwhile finds made by detectorists varies considerably depending on the site, but it is by no means unusual for it to be of the order of one hundred to one. And even when a worthwhile find is made, it is frequently the case that recording would serve no useful purpose. Modern coins, for example, may well be regarded as good finds, but their recording is extremely unlikely to add anything to our historical or numismatic knowledge.

Collectively, detectorists do make large numbers of finds that are worth recording, and in a small number of cases, the finds are spectacular and valuable. The latter are often in the form of hoards, which by their very nature were hidden in remote uninhabited areas, and are unlikely to be discovered by traditional archaeological methods. Such valuable finds, however, are quite exceptional. Nothing highlights the ignorance of the hobby’s detractors more than their assertion that detectorists are motivated by financial gain. Experienced hobbyists treat such claims with the contempt that they deserve, and anyone entering the hobby with such an aim would very rapidly become disillusioned and leave.

In summary, the portrayal of metal detecting by its detractors is one that few informed people, inside or outside the hobby, would recognise. Their propaganda is characterised by distortions and misuse of statistics to portray the hobby in a negative light. They blur the distinction between hobbyists and criminals that use metal detectors, just as they blur the distinction between archaeological sites and land that has no known archaeological significance. They do likewise with spurious statistics regarding numbers of finds made and recorded, deliberately choosing to ignore the fact that the vast majority of items recovered are of no archaeological or historical significance. However, the reality of the hobby’s contribution to knowledge is plain for everyone to see. It is evident in the display cases of our museums, the records on our databases, and the publications on our bookshelves.

Carthage Mayor Mike Harris said “exaggerated and erroneous information” led the council to give preliminary approval to an ordinance controlling metal detecting in city parks.

At Harris’ request, the Carthage City Council tabled indefinitely final consideration of the ordinance that would have required anyone wanting to use a metal detector in a city park to sign a request sheet and turn any artifact that was older than 100 years over to the city.

The vote to table was unanimous.

“The passage of time made me kind of sit back and look at it less emotionally,” Harris said after Tuesday’s meeting. “Then we received many well-written letters from metal detectorists, if that is a word, and also there were historians who feel that they serve a vital role in uncovering artifacts, perhaps more vital than archeologists, who only do that for fees. Most of what we read really made sense and shed a different light on the subject.”

The bill was drawn up as a result of publicity given by the Springfield News-Leader in early July to a rural Carthage couple who found several Civil War-era bullets, including a bullet embedded in a piece of bone, while using a metal detector in a city park.

A Springfield archeologist wrote a letter to the newspaper chastising it for publicizing the find and chastising Carthage for not controlling metal detector use on city-owned property.

The couple showed their finds to Jasper County Records Center Director Steve Weldon, who said later that some of the statements in the newspaper article, such as one saying the couple dig a 5-foot-by-5-foot hole to uncover the artifacts, were not accurate.

“The article in the Springfield paper had gross mis-statements, an example of one was that the people that found that artifact uncovered a 25-square-foot area,” Harris said. “That’s ridiculous.”

Harris said he’s convinced that hobbyists are generally an honorable bunch and will work with the city if anything of historic value is found. “If you go to the Civil War Museum and to the courthouse civil war museum, you will see that numerous artifacts there have been donated by citizens that, I’m sure, found them and felt obligated to share that with the public,” Harris said. “I think by and large, that would happen with most people.”