How to assess a site before you ever switch on your detector
Take a good look at the photograph above. Would you ask permission to detect that field?
At first glance it looks promising enough. There’s a narrow country lane, established hedgerows, mature trees and farmland that has clearly been worked for generations. Perhaps you’ve already decided that you like the look of it. You may even have picked out the part you’d search first.
But there’s a problem.
You don’t actually know anything about it.
And that’s one of the easiest mistakes to make when looking for somewhere to go metal detecting. We see a landscape that looks old and instinctively assume it must have a history worth investigating.
Of course, every field has a history. The question is whether that history involved the sort of human activity likely to have left detectable evidence behind.
Looks Can Be Deceiving
I’ve searched plenty of attractive fields that looked as though they ought to produce good finds but didn’t. Equally, some very ordinary-looking fields can turn out to have surprisingly interesting histories.
Appearance alone tells us very little.
A hollow way worn deeply into the landscape may provide valuable evidence of a long-used route, but even then we need to know where it led, what it connected and when it was in use. An impressive old tree might mark a former boundary, or it might simply be an old tree. A field beside a river sounds promising until you discover that the river was straightened and the present channel didn’t exist until relatively recently.
Even the shape of a field can mislead us. What appears to be an ancient boundary may be comparatively modern, while a large, featureless field may once have been divided into several smaller closes crossed by tracks and footpaths that have completely disappeared from the modern landscape.
That’s why I prefer to regard what I see in the landscape as questions rather than answers.
Why Were People There?
This, for me, is the key question.
Metal objects don’t arrive in fields by themselves. With the obvious exception of more recent agricultural debris, most of the things we hope to find are there because people were there.
So rather than simply asking whether a field looks old, I want to know why people might have used it.
Did a route cross it or run alongside it? If so, where did that route lead?
Was there once a settlement nearby?
Did people cross a river or stream there?
Was there a mill, manor, church, market, fair, landing place or other focus of activity in the vicinity?
Was the land always agricultural, or was it used differently in the past?
None of these things guarantees good finds. What they provide is something much more useful: a reason for people to have been there.
And once you have that, you have somewhere to start.
Start with the Research
Before spending hours detecting a new field, I would much rather spend some time discovering what I can about it.
Old maps are an obvious starting point, but they are only part of the story. Maps of different dates can show how roads, paths, field boundaries, buildings and waterways have changed. Place-names can sometimes provide useful clues. Local histories, old newspapers, finds records and other online sources can add further pieces to the picture.
One source may tell you very little. Several sources considered together can tell you a great deal.
Suppose, for example, that the lane in our photograph appears on the earliest maps you can find. Further research shows that it once continued beyond its present course towards an old settlement. Perhaps an earlier map then reveals a footpath leaving the lane and crossing the field.
Suddenly you’re no longer looking at an attractive country scene.
You’re beginning to understand how people moved through it.
That doesn’t mean you’ve found a productive detecting site. You still haven’t switched on your detector. But you now have a reason to investigate further.
Let the First Finds Guide You
Research gets you into the field. The finds then begin to test your ideas.
If the evidence suggested earlier activity but several carefully planned searches produce nothing except modern agricultural debris, you may have to reconsider your interpretation.
Perhaps people travelled through the area without losing much. Perhaps the activity took place somewhere slightly different from where you expected. Or perhaps the documentary evidence simply made the site appear more promising than it really was.
On the other hand, a few relevant finds can change everything.
One isolated old coin may be no more than a casual loss. Several finds of a similar period concentrated in one part of the field are much more interesting. Add objects from other periods and you may begin to recognise a much longer history of activity.
This is where detecting and research start working together.
The research suggests where activity might have occurred. The finds provide evidence of what actually happened. Those finds can then send you back to the maps and records looking for something you missed the first time.
It becomes a continuing process rather than simply choosing a field and walking up and down it.
Where Would You Start?
Now look at the photograph again.
Would you search beside the lane?
Along the hedge?
Around the mature trees?
Perhaps you would head straight for the middle of the field.
Any one of those choices could be right. They could all be wrong.
Without knowing the history of the site, we’re largely guessing.
That’s not to say instinct has no place in metal detecting. After enough years in the hobby, most of us develop a feel for landscapes and places that deserve closer attention. I’ve certainly acted on hunches myself.
But a hunch becomes much more powerful when you can support it with evidence.
So, Would I Detect It?
From the photograph alone, I couldn’t tell you.
And that’s really the point.
I wouldn’t reject the field because there’s nothing obviously exciting about it, nor would I rush to seek permission simply because the lane and hedgerows look old.
I’d want to know more.
I’d want to find out how the landscape had changed, whether people had reason to be there and whether the various clues began to form a convincing picture.
Only then could I make an informed decision about whether the field deserved my detecting time.
Because finding better sites isn’t really about finding fields that look promising.
It’s about learning to ask the question that matters most:
What happened there?
Recent Comments