Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
14th December 2005, 04:00 PM
Agree to everything said so far. Delegates on the NCMD are raising issues to promote change within the organisation. As Steve pointed out earlier, the NCMD represents detectorists who are members of the NCMD only, NOT the hobby as a whole.
The codes were brought out at a time when there was a need to show MD'ing was a hobby to be taken seriously. The NCMD code was revised in light of the changes to the Treasure Act, and is now under revision again. This time, the revision has been put together by the CBA, and if/when the whole document is accepted by the NCMD, it will become policy. Until then, we can only refer to what we have now.
One of the problems with codes like these is that they are merely guidlines. If they are to be enforced, then there must be some form of leverage which one can use to 'encourage' members to adhere to them. We (Metal Detecting) have no such leverage. As I have mentioned previously, being a hobby, there is no way that a hobby detectorist can be 'forced' to comply with a set of rules which have nothing to do with him/her.
How does the archaeological community enforce the Codes upon archaeologists? Indeed, can it 'enforce' these codes? If the power exists to 'force' these issues, then why, for example, can't this power be brought to bear upon those who would flout the HSE, as has been raised on another thread?
Many people in the detecting community would love to see a body that would speak for ALL detectorists. Steve-B has mentioned this also, but until there is some form of cohesion within detecting, that will be a long way off.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
14th December 2005, 04:41 PM
...and the bickering between the two of you showed quite clearly that any form of cohesion in the metal detecting world is a long way off indeed.
A metal-detector is a geophysical survey tool and can be used to great effect as part of an archaeological project. However to me the most irritating aspect of metal detecting is the emphasis on 'bling' at the expense of non-precious metals and context. The failure of most metal detectorists to understand this over two years ago was the main reason for my withdrawal from the Britarch discussion list. I am not going to repeat history again, so this will be the last thing I have to say on the matter.
To look at the past through the keyhole excavation of certain metals is to my mind absolutely bonkers.
Ferrous metals (for example) are completely excluded from the minds of metal detectorists as they have no monetary value. Yet they have an archaeological value - a scattering of nails and bolts might betray the location of an old house or fence, a large lump of iron might be the base of a bloomery or smithy. Only by careful plotting and proper excavation can these slight traces of human existence in the landscape be detected.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
14th December 2005, 05:49 PM
Remember PMP archaeologists are very good at bickering too... and forming bonkers ideas from inappropriate keyhole excavations.. or even from huge but poorly excavated sites...
The purpose of BAJR is to help bring in minds to get to the roots of problems, think of ways to reach a suitable conclusion and act...
I would very much like this to be part of the BAJR conference... 
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
14th December 2005, 06:13 PM
Well indeed that is a fair point!
I agree that dialogue is the way forward but I personally am too short-fused to participate in this particular discussion usefully.
Good luck to those that carry on talking - it is the only way.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
14th December 2005, 06:41 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Post-Med Potterer
...and the bickering between the two of you showed quite clearly that any form of cohesion in the metal detecting world is a long way off indeed.
And only serves to emphasise the point that to try to 'enforce' a code of practice without some form of leverage would be a waste of time.
Quote:quote:
A metal-detector is a geophysical survey tool and can be used to great effect as part of an archaeological project. However to me the most irritating aspect of metal detecting is the emphasis on 'bling' at the expense of non-precious metals and context.
In some ways I would agree with you on this. One of the reasons why many people take up Metal Detecting is because of the 'bling' factor in programs like 'Hidden Treasure'. If the world of archaeology puts so much emphasis on the finding of 'treasure', then what chance do we have of persuading people to record the ferrous material they find. If you were to see my 'scrap box' you'd realise that the average detectorist does pay attention to non-precious metal.
The people who are only interested in the 'bling' factor of finds are the real 'treasure-hunters'. They tend to be, as stated, people who saw it on telly or read about it in the local rags. After a few weeks of finding 'scrap metal' they tend to give up, and the detector ends up in placed like the attic.
Quote:quote:
A scattering of nails and bolts might betray the location of an old house or fence, a large lump of iron might be the base of a bloomery or smithy.
Or the large lump of iron could be (and usually is) a plough share. I don't know anyone who sells the items they find, unless it is of some value of which half is given to the landowner. So I can't completely agree with the view that we are only interested in the 'bling factor'.
What I would like to see, and I know Hostie is of a similar mind, is a field survey carried out, with archaeologists and detectorists working together. The techies would mark out find spots with coloured flags, the archies would then plot, dig, and record the item found. After lunch, the archies could have a go at teching, and the techies would plot, dig and record the finds. Each getting experience of the others method of working.
I have suggested earlier that one of the best ways to protect a site from 'nighthawks' is to carry out a similar type of survey. If anyone knows of any such site and is willing to put a crew of archaeologists together, I'm sure I could convince a few techies to do the same.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
15th December 2005, 12:01 PM
Quote:quote:
A scattering of nails and bolts might betray the location of an old house or fence, a large lump of iron might be the base of a bloomery or smithy.
Quote:quote:
Or the large lump of iron could be (and usually is) a plough share. I don't know anyone who sells the items they find, unless it is of some value of which half is given to the landowner. So I can't completely agree with the view that we are only interested in the 'bling factor'.
This is part of the problem. How will we, as archaeologists know if a large lump of iron is the base of a bloomery or a plough share if it's not documented properly. Metal detecting is an extremely useful tool in archaeology and in my opinion necessary on many sites, but it needs some guidelines so everyone is clear on what should be done. I honestly think that no one on this site has a problem with metal detecting as a hobby or as part of an excavation, the problem comes when we lose valuable information because something wasn't recorded properly. Archaeology and metal detecting are both destructive, once you remove something from the ground, you destroy its context, you can't go back and have another look at a different date because its not there anymore!
Unfortunately there are people on both sides of this argument who cannot see the other person's point of view. At the end of the day, its our heritage that is being lost (There goes the H word again!) whether because of a poor excavation or a metal detectorist not recording where a find was made. I find that really sad  It's not that difficult really
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
15th December 2005, 01:18 PM
It would appear that there areas upon which archeaologists and detectorists can fully agree. I, for one, would like to see a system in place that would allow for the recording of all items found in the ground. On a practical level, very few detectorists actually take not of everything that is found. This is not down to laziness or the 'bling' factor as PMP puts it, but down to a lack of education on the importance of artefacts that are detected.
The message is getting across to detectorists, if slowly, that there is as much information to be gained from where an item was found as to what item was found. I realise this doesn't help with items that are found now, but, (in the same manner that present day archaeologists cringe at the methods of their predecessors) future detectorists will, I am sure, look back at how we dealt with finds, and cringe at our methodology.
I am not apologising for how things are, merely pointing out that there have been mistakes made, IMO, by both 'groups' which have led to the divide between archaeologists and detectorists. I know this because I was in the thick of it back in the dark and distant days of the late 70's and 80's. Had more of a dialogue been opened then, the story today would, I am certain, be completely different.
Archaeologists and Detectorists are working together up and down the country. Mutually respecting each others 'philosophy' and methods. A working partnership that has been forged through experience and a willingness to be open-minded enough to share each others skills.
That is where I think we should start this 'dialogue' from. Common ground that has been worked and proven, and on which a future working relationship can be encouraged and developed.
If this sounds a bit far-fetched, or pipedream-ish, then I am ready, and willing, to listen to any alternatives to how we should be working together.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
15th December 2005, 03:50 PM
Quote:
"What I would like to see, and I know Hostie is of a similar mind, is a field survey carried out, with archaeologists and detectorists working together. The techies would mark out find spots with coloured flags, the archies would then plot, dig, and record the item found. After lunch, the archies could have a go at teching, and the techies would plot, dig and record the finds. Each getting experience of the others method of working.
I have suggested earlier that one of the best ways to protect a site from 'nighthawks' is to carry out a similar type of survey. If anyone knows of any such site and is willing to put a crew of archaeologists together, I'm sure I could convince a few techies to do the same."
Hang on a mo.. call me simplistic but, what you're saying here is that the best way to prevent a site being looted is to strip it first? what if the site in question proves to lie very close to the surface? lets call it a Saxon cemetery.
In this case the artefacts detected lie within the context of grave cuts and the only options open to you are to are:
A: To professionally excavate the site without a pre-arranged source of funding or research proposal/agenda.(this has occurred before, the archaeologists in question were forced to resort to the Time Team..)
B: Remove all the metal artefacts without regard for their context,or the integrity of the features.
C:Leave the site undisturbed, but, thanks to the involvement of many detectorists, with a much higher profile than it started with.
This sort of reasoning fails to take on board the whole concept of context, it doesn't recognize that items of "bling" are just a part of a site, not the POINT of it.
However, if Mr Hosty does concur with this idea, perhaps I've misinterpreted the posting.
Throwing in the trowel.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
15th December 2005, 04:13 PM
If you have a real problem with nighthawks you could always seed the field with millions of scrap peices of copper
On a more serious note I think the only thing that could be done about nighthawks would be to talk to the landowner and try and make him aware of the problem, and also tell the county archaeologist as well as they may have options available to deal with the situation.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
15th December 2005, 05:32 PM
Hosty here...
I think the confusion is in picking a specific (and theoretical site)
But for example.. say we do have a Saxon Cemetary which is known to be searched by thieves. What to do?
Certainly these people will not be acting in the same way as the majority of people who handle and use detectors.. they will dig in deep ... but if finds... in context are that close to the surface then this is a site under threat... and as such should be a priority site and such a colaboration between archaeologists and detecorists should be supported. Many many sites are under grave threat (from numerous causes) to sit back and watch them disappear is not an option... a strategy yes.... a wait and see... not really.
Hope that clears up things 
ps.... seeding does not really work - it only takes a tweak to filter out specific signals...
I am for collaboration.. and as I said, if a site is so close to the surface that digging in up to 10" (the normal depth of detecting - correct me if I am wrong) will get you into stratified deposits... something is urgently required.
Another day another WSI?
|
