Why one exciting discovery doesn’t necessarily make a good detecting site
Which of these finds catches your eye first? And which might tell you most about a site?
Take a look at the finds above. Which one caught your eye first?
I’m willing to bet it was the hammered silver coin.
That’s hardly surprising. Put a hammered coin among a collection of buckles, buttons and other everyday objects and most detectorists will notice the silver first.
But here’s the more interesting question.
Which of those finds might tell you most about a site?
The answer isn’t necessarily the hammered coin.
There are few things more likely to influence our opinion of a field than making one really good find. Find a hammered silver coin and suddenly the field can seem much more interesting. Perhaps there was a medieval settlement here. Maybe a track once crossed the field. There might even be more hammered coins waiting nearby.
Any of those possibilities could be right. But at this stage that’s all they are — possibilities.
One of the lessons I’ve learnt over many years of detecting is that a good find and a good site aren’t necessarily the same thing.
One Find Is Still One Find
Take that hammered coin.
It certainly tells us that the coin ended up in the field, but by itself it tells us surprisingly little about why.
It might have been lost by somebody crossing the land. It could have been carried there later with material spread on the fields. Soil may have been moved. There are numerous ways in which an object can end up some distance from the activity with which it was originally associated.
Or it may be exactly what we’re hoping for: the first indication of previously unsuspected activity.
The problem is that we don’t yet know.
The same applies to finds from other periods. A single Roman coin doesn’t automatically indicate a Roman settlement. One medieval buckle doesn’t prove that people were living nearby. Even a particularly attractive or valuable find shouldn’t be allowed to carry more weight simply because we’d rather find it than a broken buckle or an anonymous piece of lead.
That’s where it pays to separate excitement from evidence.
The Finds You Nearly Ignore
Ironically, some of the objects that tell us most about a site are those we might barely give a second glance.
Suppose that instead of one hammered coin you begin finding several medieval buckles and strap fittings. Then another hammered coin appears. Perhaps there are other everyday objects of broadly the same period.
None may be especially valuable.
Together, however, they’re beginning to tell you something.
Now we have repetition. We have several objects suggesting activity during broadly the same period. If they are also occurring within a particular part of the field, the evidence becomes more interesting still.
The individual objects haven’t changed.
What has changed is the pattern.
Beware of Finding What You Want to Find
There’s another danger after making an exciting discovery.
We start looking for evidence to support the conclusion we’ve already reached.
Find a Roman brooch and suddenly every odd-looking piece of lead becomes potentially Roman. Find a hammered coin and a previously unremarkable footpath starts looking suspiciously medieval.
It’s very easy to construct a story around a good find.
I’ve done it myself.
The answer isn’t to ignore instinct or speculation. Both are useful parts of detecting and research. A theory gives us something to test.
The important thing is to recognise the difference between a possibility and a conclusion.
If I find a Roman coin, one possibility is that there was Roman activity nearby. That’s a perfectly reasonable reason to search the surrounding area carefully and perhaps return to my research.
But if repeated searching produces nothing else of that period, eventually I have to consider another possibility: perhaps it really was just an isolated loss.
Let the Field Answer the Question
This is one reason I don’t like judging a site solely by its best find.
I’d rather look at the finds as a whole.
What periods are represented?
Are particular types of object recurring?
Are the older finds scattered across the field or concentrated in certain areas?
Do later visits reinforce the pattern or contradict it?
And, importantly, does any of this fit what the research has already suggested about the site?
Sometimes the answer becomes apparent fairly quickly. At other sites it may take many visits before a convincing picture begins to emerge.
Occasionally, the picture never emerges at all.
There’s nothing wrong with that. Not every good find has a larger story behind it.
Would You Go Back?
So let’s return to our hammered coin.
Would I go back?
Almost certainly.
A good early find is a reason to investigate further. I’d want to search the surrounding area carefully and see whether anything else supported it. I’d probably return to my research as well, particularly if the find was unexpected.
But I wouldn’t yet declare that I’d discovered a medieval site.
I’d let the next finds decide that.
If further medieval material began appearing, particularly within a recognisable concentration, my interest would increase considerably.
If another twenty hours produced nothing relevant, I’d start thinking differently.
And that is perhaps the important distinction.
A good find gives you a reason to ask another question. It doesn’t necessarily give you the answer.
The most spectacular object in your finds pouch may be the one you show everybody when you get home.
But the insignificant-looking objects lying beside it may ultimately tell you far more about the field.
Continue Learning
If you enjoyed this article, you’ll find many more practical guides organised by topic on the Metal Detecting Guides & Tips page.
Whether you’re interested in research, permissions, field techniques, understanding finds or responsible detecting, it’s the best place to continue your journey.
👉 Browse Metal Detecting Guides & Tips
Recent Comments