Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2023

24 Metal detecting as an evaluation technique: Detailed and Partial Artefact Survey (DAPAS) Keith Westcott, Director of the Institute of Detectorists CIC and Chair of The Detectorists Foundation Metal detecting, and fieldwalking, have been under-utilised as archaeological evaluation techniques. In this case study, Keith Westcott describes how these two non-intrusive approaches can be combined in a cost-effective way. Detailed and partial artefact survey enables the identification of both metallic and non-metallic finds, supporting greater understanding of the significance of archaeological remains and the potential impact of construction work on that significance. To maximise the benefits that archaeology creates for business and society, it must be carried out with professionalism. The Institute of Detectorists CIC and The Detectorists Foundation promote the importance of professional standards for metal detecting, enabling detectorists to work alongside archaeologists within a shared ethical framework. Gathering material evidence of our past enables archaeologists to build a robust assessment of our heritage, where often there is no written evidence. Important evidence discovered in situ during excavation provides valuable contextual dating evidence but also, as fieldwalking demonstrates, spatially recording surface finds can contextualise a landscape, providing a tangible insight into our cultural history. Technological advances have brought positive changes to the assessment and evaluation of archaeological significance in the 21st century. Photogrammetry, remote sensing with LiDAR and geological surveys producing images and mapping all contribute to a non-intrusive approach to archaeological evaluation. To confidently define a site and reduce uncertainty, determining archaeological evidence through key indicators requires a process of initial desk-based assessment, remote sensing surveys and, before forming a mitigation strategy, possibly surveying for tangible dating evidence. Fieldwalking, though labour intensive, is a tried and tested evaluation technique to help determine human activity in an area and is an important tool in the archaeologist’s assortment of available field survey options. So too is the metal detecting survey. Although both fieldwalking and metal detecting surveys utilise ‘collection units’ (a gridded and transect approach) and look to achieve the same outcome of assessing the archaeological potential of an area, the two disciplines are rarely carried out by the same organisation or individuals. However, despite the obvious benefits in collecting and spatially recording all material artefacts from the archaeological record, fieldwalking and metal detecting surveys are not the norm in today’s commercially sensitive archaeological world. Conversely, and leading to the ultimate Metal detecting has traditionally been limited to scanning spoil heaps ©Charlie Newlands