Best detector for archaeology

[wreckrat]

Hi, I use a minelab excalibur and took it on a dig in Greece last year where it really helped find small objects missed in the dirt and also helped finding coins and other objects. The archaeologists were impressed and now want to purchase a good detector . Whats the best detector for about $500. It doesnt need to discriminate as they will dig every object and it needs to be able to find all metals easily. It does need to have great depth as there can be a large layer of junk on top before the active layers. It probably needs reasonable pinpointing and needs to be sturdy for field use. They will be finding objects from size of small fishhook up to broze statues. Is there a detector that meets all these needs?

1) excellent depth
2) Sturdy with reasonable pinpointing
3) no need for discrimination

Thanks

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

The excaliber, when used in all-metal (aka "pinpointing") mode, will perform your spec's. However, since it's motion-based, you can't stop on the target when you go to pinpoint. You have to sort of "eyeball" the center of the target, as you criss-cross. But not a big deal.

If you want a true non-motion pinpoint mode, where you can size out targets, and stop over them, you'll need to go to any of various VLF all-metal modes. Like a GEB supreme from the 1970s, or an XLT put into all-metal mode (turn off SAT, turn on VCO, etc...).

If they're archaeologists, then they won't mind finding the nails, and small iron (in fact, they would probably prefer to find them ). So this is the setup I'd suggest.

If you REALLY want to go deep, in all metal, and REALLY want to be able to get teensy stuff, you can go with some of the Minelab nugget machines. Those would get a coin to WELL over a foot, and find a fish-hook at insane depths too. In fact, every staple, pinhead, etc.... will sound off But that's probably over-kill, even for an archie

 

[Smudge]

Given your criteria, I would seriously look at White's Sierra Madre. That detector is hardly ever discussed on forums.

It's depth is known to exceed 2 feet and you said discrimination was unnecessary.

It's also in your price range.

Sounds like it may be a perfect fit for you.

 

[Swartzie]

Tesoro Tejon. A very sensitive machine when you run it in all metal. Sturdy, lightweight, pinpoints right on.
-Swartzie

 

[Frankn]

How about a forked stick and a dip needle to go with their little trowl and paintbrush? LOL

What set me off? The last three treasures I have researched have wound up on NPS property which was taken over with the Desert Protection act From the Bureau of Land Management. Only the Archies are allowed to look!

​

 

[U.K. Brian]

The Sierra Madre is not a bad choice with the 9.5 and 15 inch coils. The 25 inch is just to hard to handle. In the U.K. they seem to like old Fishers (pre first Texas) or modern Tesoro's. Or get the mugs in the local detector club to do it all for them !

The Excaliber would not be the best choice on price and lack of coil selection. They could pick up a reasonable Sovereign secondhand and a larger coil.

Problem is they really need a supersensitive detector (which will tend to be limited in depth), and a depth monster as well and the extremes don't tend to come in one package. Think I've just talked myself back into the Sierra !

 

[Sandman]

Since you are going to need to find all metals a Pulse Induction detector is right up your alley. You should check into the JW. Fisher's X8. But being an Archie you should already know this.

 

[U.K. Brian]

The Fisher is well out for the count. To expensive. Insensitive. Designed to be used on wrecks at some depth under water so high u/S not low u/S which is also why its not a good choice even for wading or the salt beach.

 

[Digger82]

Check out the Golden mask range, these machines fits your specifications quite well .

 

[LM]

Sandman nailed it. Your specs sound like they were written for a PI Metal Detector.

 

[Cass]

I would suggest a Tesoro Tejon, Vaquero,(not Cibola) or one of the Umax models. Even one of the older Umax models like the Sidewinder, or the Silver Sabre, or newer Sabre.Extreme depth is/is not ??all that necessary because as a rule they would likely mostly be using it when digging a "unit, and that is as a RULE always taken down very gradually and the habit of digging out single digs ahead of the standard procedure would rule out the need in my opinion for any extreme depth. As for descrimination, it would be good to have some disc. to help ID artifacts before they are dug, and to allow disc. out of some of the tiny flecks of iron debre smaller than the nails they want to "see". Screen will find those anyway and they would only slow the ID process.All the Umax models allow the interchanging of different coils also which will sometimes come in handy for the times when a smaller coil will come in handy for working in and around the iron/nails. Tejon or a Vac.(interchangeable coils) either one with a 5.75 Con. would certainly be a good choice , but the Umax choice(price) could also provide the possibility of not one, but 2 detectors, for whenever several units are being worked at the same time. Have to say also that another good choice would actually have to include the Tesoro Compadre. It could actually be the better choice over all the others as it is known to be superb in the nails and an excellent descriminator of small gold, even chain.Those are my thoughts from some time working with Archies, but there may be better suggestions from others with real professional experience and knowledge. Go to some Archie sites and see what they use. Detectors have yet to be discovered by their majority as a useful tool, and is still frowned upon by many, so there will likely be some different views on what they like to use unless you could find one that began using detectors years ago. Those are few. HH, Cass

 

[jretz]

As a professional archaeologist and a metal detecting enthusiast (yes there are some of us) I rarely find a need for a metal detector when doing archaeological surveys in the U.S. Most sites are prehistoric and most historic sites are usually identifiable from the surface. In the cases where we have had to do a study of a particular site and it is historic there is usually a lot of metal, ie: trash dumps, collapsed structures, logging camps, railroad sites, etc. If an archaeologist is doing research on a particular site, such as a battle field or encampment a metal detector can be a handy item, but this type of archaeologist is not done as often as general site surveys and project clearance surveys where you are just locating and identifying cultural resource sites but not doing in-depth studies of them.

I have found that in most cases when an archaeologist uses a metal detector it should be as simple to use as possible - turn on and go. In the past I have used a Fisher 1225 and a Silver Saber. Both did outstanding. I use them with no or very little discrimination, when I located a target I then used discrimination get a basic idea of what it might be then flagged the spot accordingly. If we are looking for large concentrations of items or large or deep items we then utilize ground-penetrating radar.

In the field it is best to keep it simple as anything that could go wrong will and the percentage of problems is proportional to the remoteness of the project.

 

[Goodyguy]

As a professional archaeologist and a metal detecting enthusiast (yes there are some of us) I rarely find a need for a metal detector when doing archaeological surveys in the U.S. Most sites are prehistoric and most historic sites are usually identifiable from the surface. In the cases where we have had to do a study of a particular site and it is historic there is usually a lot of metal, ie: trash dumps, collapsed structures, logging camps, railroad sites, etc. If an archaeologist is doing research on a particular site, such as a battle field or encampment a metal detector can be a handy item, but this type of archaeologist is not done as often as general site surveys and project clearance surveys where you are just locating and identifying cultural resource sites but not doing in-depth studies of them.

I have found that in most cases when an archaeologist uses a metal detector it should be as simple to use as possible - turn on and go. In the past I have used a Fisher 1225 and a Silver Saber. Both did outstanding. I use them with no or very little discrimination, when I located a target I then used discrimination get a basic idea of what it might be then flagged the spot accordingly. If we are looking for large concentrations of items or large or deep items we then utilize ground-penetrating radar.


In the field it is best to keep it simple as anything that could go wrong will and the percentage of problems is proportional to the remoteness of the project.

I totally agree with Jretz,

For purposes of locating small metal objects at no more than a foot deep why spend money on discrimination and bells and whistles, when you are going to dig up all targets anyway.

I have used my $150 Bounty Hunter tracker IV on several historical digs. You would be surprised how deep it will detect in all metal mode using no discrimination. Also using a small 4" nugget coil it pinpoints very well. Plus it's one of the simplest to operate and most durable detectors on the market.

You are going to screen the grid area anyway, so why pay more for wasted technology.

GG~