Metal Detecting Q&A

[mercenary]

Well I can't say that I'm surprised that this discussion has broken down so spectacularly after a promising start. It always seems to boil down to a them vs us mentality. And in this case it seems to have been initiated by MD's getting defensive about comments from archs who probably don't represent the majority opinion. Nothing could have been surer. Sigh...

What I really have problems with is this retreat and retrenchment and an underlying assumption that MD's and Archs actually do different things so don't need to abide by similar standards. We all remove archaeological material from its context and have an obligation to record that context.
Now it seems to me that many MD's and a few Archs are not willing to do this. The difference is that the Archs have a raft of regulations to make them do it, while the MD's are only really appealed to on ethical grounds, and unsurprisingly probably find it more work than they are confortable with (so don't).

If you ask an arch what he would ideally like a MD to record he is unsurprisingly going to say he'd like standards similar to the ones he is required to adhere to. He's not dictating to MD's, he's asking for an equal application of ethical guidelines.

The real debate here is whether removing finds from topsoil should warrant the same level of obligation. I would argue that it shouldn't, and as has been pointed out, using heavy plant to remove topsoil shows that commercial archaeology agrees. BUT MD's don't always limit finds removal to topsoil. This is what most archs have problems with.

A MD who removes a find from a stratified deposit beneath the topsoil is in effect an archaeologist at that point.

Why then not be obliged to record to the same standard?

Md's may argue that a) the law doesn't require the to.
b)it would require expensive kit.
c)They don't have the specialist knowledge to differentiate topsoil from stratigraphy.

Can you imagine archs of any type (including amateurs)using any of these excuses and being taken seriously. It would make other archs very angry. So why do MD's get taken seriously and allowed to hide behind the hobby status.

Amateur archaeologist are also doing it as a hobby, but are required to attain a high standard. The ones I've worked with don't complain that they are being dictated to, get defensive, and refuse to fulfill their ethical obligation to record.

For me the dividing line between Metal detecting and Archaeology, (and we need a dividing line as long as MD's are largely unwilling to record to the same standard as archs) is the base of the topsoil. I can see no way to patrol that border, and it seems some archs would like to move the frontier to include the topsoil as well. I can understand why MD's are angry about this. If the MD community wants lower recording standards for topsoil (which is reasonable), then it needs to figure out how to limit detecting to it. If not I feel that the hobby is in an untenable position and this discussion may as well end.

[BAJR Host]

Glad this has come back on track.

This is one of these fab circular elements that goes nowhere.

IF archaeologists all agree that the hobby should not be banned.
AND the detectorists agree that it would be sensible to have some form of regulation (over and above all the laws that everyone has to abide by) then what is the problem.

However we have to both step back... take a hard look at why each 'group' think (or perceive) that the other is wrong.

As an archaeologist we have regulations.. we have codes and guidelines.... the point may even come when full regulation with licensed archaeologists happens. .....

What would a detectorists point of view be for making the hobby into something which does not leave itself open to criticism?

We already know that archaeology has lots to criticise... but we are working on it... (see any number of posts on BAJR / Britarch etc) so leave that aside ... what will it take to have MDs seen to be taking the results of their actions - no matter how innocently or correctly carried out - and ensuring that it moves forward with purpose and responsibility.

It does not involve banning, it does not involve external regulation (other than that which rules us all) but it does involve some form of will to show a desire to move forward -

Answers on a large postcard please.


And lets all remember that as we might just all meet each other in September? act and write as you would speak to someone face to face? Lets keep the quoting and return quotes to a minimum? this is not about analysing semantics but discussing a way forward.

Oh?. And happy festive cheer to you all


Another day another WSI?

[garybrun]

I have been a member of quite a few of the main archaeological forums for quite some time now and have been trying to see what could be done to build bridges between the archaeological community and detecting community. I joined this forum because of Mr Hosty and his attitudes towards detectorists and his work with liaison.

Boy is this one tricky subject for liaison and debate because it stirs up so many passions in both sides. Archaeologists are so passionate about the heritage but some fail to understand that many a detectorist is also passionate about his heritage. There are many problems in both camps that are trying to be rectified with standards.

I believe you need to create a will and lead the way and the other sheep will follow after a while. There are many in the detecting community who have literally stuck their necks out to be chopped off because they have supported recording and trying to work with standards.
The problem is there are no standards within the detecting community (some would like to call the code of practise a standard) but I myself GARY BRUN think it?s a waste of paper (these are my personal opinions) There are many changes going on within the detecting community and many people are coming around to see a change in attitudes regarding recording, recording standards and archaeologists.

But threads like this don?t help either camp especially when they become abusive. ( I think the abuse is drawn out of frustration of not being able to get ones point across on an internet forum? when maybe it would be better face to face? but I hope we can have good referees in the boxing ring). The debate just goes around in circles all the time and ends up in a massive bust up with accusations of rape etc on both sides?. If you stand back and look at it you can see why people get their backs up.

I also think this is also a class problem.
Many people think that a detectorist is illiterate and uneducated and not worth talking too (well we will only if it is really necessary) and doesn?t have a degree etc. This is the mentality that some ?archaeologists? must work on and the preaching of old school that every detectorist is a bad person etc. You cant say this doesn?t exist? some wont reply?but how many of you think this way right now???? This is still being taught in some of the universities.

I don?t have an ology but I am a successful business man with quite a few companies in different countries? but just because I hold a detector in my hand I am branded a thief and rapist etc. I am also thought to be un educated and only have the brain the size of pea that can only hear a beep-beep and dig up metal..
I think the crux of the problem is that both parts of the ?Great Divide? brand everybody the same.

Any mistake an archaeologist does regarding JCB and top soil etc or slags of the detecting community ?doest matter who does it? all archaeologists carry the can. Same with the detectorist and night hawks. There are not many of these as they are really frowned upon within the detecting community? but when one is found out we all carry the can.. same for selling finds on eBay. The eBay thing is real problem for detectorists in the UK because many of the finds originate from outside of the UK and many are from Baltic countries? but we still get tarred with the same brush.

Archaeologists will bring up the night hawk, recording, EBay arguments and the detectorists will use the JCB, Time team and top soil and the legal right as a hobbyists. Were is that getting everybody?.. NO WHERE? just running around like bloody ostriches? and burying their heads in the sand when the certain ?verbal triggers? are brought up and to be honest its so tiring to try and do something positive, only to be ?taken apart? because your archaeological way is the only way? and that?s it. Full Stop!!!

You paid to go to university and get a degree in this profession? yet your profession is not even accredited title? ( I think it should be) and I can understand many being cheesed off because they cant get a job etc. Think of Mr average man in the street who many think they are just paying their taxes for people to earn an ology and then go on then claim unemployment benefit. Face the facts education is a two way street. Times have changed when people ask what is your profession ?Oh I?m an archaeologists? its is seen to be very trendy and ?Up market? and a step up in the ?Class System?. Archaeologists need to get people interested in archaeology and not claim heritage as their domain and nobody else has the right to encroach on it.


If some of you are really concerned about the heritage you will acknowledge the work that is a foot to bring around recording ( OK it may not be the standard that you a professional archaeologist require and some may say it is useless and you have a right to that opinion) but it?s a start and any find recorded is recorded whether it be on a piece of paper, home computer, UKDFD. PAS etc that is taken care off and is passed on.

I for one am sick of the ?ostrich mentality? and feel like were putting on another show of Punch and Judy.

Both sides have a choice? debate and come to a compromise.
When you reach the compromise you will later find maybe a solution? but at the moment we are just pissing in the wind.

lets try and come up with a sensible approach and try and create a standard. the let many of us within the detecting community go out and sell that standard. But don't expect it all to be your way and only the archaeological way.

If anyone wants to discuss this off list then please feel free to contact me as I know quite a few people who would be interested in really working in this area. Maybe Hosty would create a user group on this forum that could thrash out such a standard and invite people over whom are able to put their emotions aside and work in a responsible and constructive manner.

I myself think I will go and join the UN and take a coarse in peace keeping. I may get shot ... but at least i would feel i was doing some good.:face-approve:


http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[mercenary]

Apologies to Paul for re-posting his comments originally posted on Britarch. He makes the points far more clearly than I could.

"There is an interesting discussion of artefact hunting and archaeology going on over on BAJR. http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?...hichpage=1 So far there is eight pages of it. As usual (instead of the more accurate and descriptive term "artefact hunting"), the term "metal detecting" is being used and lulling people into discussing just the "finding" aspect. This means that what is for me the fundamental difference between so-called "detecting" and archaeology is being missed; that the act of hunting the finds is indivisibly linked with their personal collection. The artefact hunters' "interest in the past" is to generate (and expressed by the generation of) a _personal collection_ of objects as the object of study. In the BAJR discussion, a detectorist admitted that purchased objects too can add to that collection (so here context is totally missing from the equation). In such a model, archaeological sites and artefact scatters are merely the source of those collectibles. It is from this fundamental difference in approach to the archaeological record that many of the misunderstandings we have seen over the years ultimately stem. Until this is properly addressed and fully discussed (instead of being generally dismissed), there can be no "bridge-building" because we will not have established the two entirely different platforms from which that "bridge" might be built. Discuss this please on BAJR.

Paul Barford "


He makes some very good points about the differences between artefact collectors and archaeologists. I'm not sure at this stage how it changes my views because currently most artefact hunting appears to be legal. I, like most archaeologists, would like sale of antiquities from any country to be vigourously regulated. If that happens, and I'm not confident that it will anytime soon, then the worst aspects of artefact hunting should be controlled. As for personal collections I may be as guilty as anyone. I've got a nice assemblage collected from various spoil heaps over the years. There is nothing that your average artefact hunter would bother with, but the same argument should apply. So I suppose I'm OK with personal collections, as long as the inportant finds are provenanced, and known to the SMR.

It seems to me that the curation of personal collections is the other part of the artefact hunting hobby that needs as many guidelines as the "finding" process. It's not the side of it that I know or have thought about. The BAJR forum tends to deal with field archaeology so has focussed more on the finding side of it.

[BAJR Host]

Ah... Paul Barford... he may make some good points... but sadly after some rather offensive remarks he made about me I have filtered him on my email... so I never see his comments.

Gary has made a realistic and sensible post... what we need to do is react to how and why we feel the way we do... both detectorists and archaeologists should understand the other and see why they feel the way they do..... then discuss how this came about.... listen to each other and draw a line under it.... moving forward is the only option.

Gary points out clearly the nub of the disagreements... neither MD or archaeolgosit should try to justify or get defensive over practices that when we look at them from a neutral standpoint do not make sense...

Lets look at these aspects from our own perspective and then work out the best way forward.

ie.... can any archaeolgoists explain why stripping the topsoil with a JCB is not bad practice..... but removing artecats from same topsoil is.

theres a start.

Another day another WSI?

[mercenary]

quote:ie.... can any archaeolgoists explain why stripping the topsoil with a JCB is not bad practice..... but removing artecats from same topsoil is.

I covered this in an earlier post. I think both are acceptable in most cases. Are there any archs out there who feel differently?

But how do you stop at the base of the topsoil? Archs are trained to do it, by recognizing the differences in deposits. What about aretefact hunters/MD's? If they can't/won't stop at this boundary then the instinctual response by the arch is to demand archaeological level recording for artefacts removed from the topsoil as well. It's not likely to happen.

So the real question is how do responsible artefact hunters/MD's limit themselves to the topsoil and leave undisturbed the stratigraphy below? Education? Enforcement?

Is it something the responsible artefact hunters/MD's are even willing to do?

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Ah... Paul Barford... he may make some good points... but sadly after some rather offensive remarks he made about me I have filtered him on my email... so I never see his comments.

I am bemused. I dont recall doing so, not deliberately anyway, and if you took offence I apologise for whatever it was. I make no secret of the fact that I do not agree with your stance on the issue of artefact hunting and private collecting (and say why), I'm sorry to see you apparently take it so personally.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Which happily leads to cooperation... if detectorists feel that they can learn from understanding stratigraphy (a few archs could do with that as well ) at least to the level of recognising topsoil / subsoil division... and archaeologists could be aided by the recognition of artefact scatters that in many cases will be removed by topsoiling to better aid the investigation of a site.

I have previously suggested that different types of sites require different approaches.

SAM sites for example are off limits to everyone unless a comprehensive research and investigation strtegy has been prepared and agreed with the National Bodies.. a rare occurance.

Known Sites... most of these sites are 'protected' by other schemes such as CSS / RSS schemes. But there is an arguement that says that artefact recovery - if recorded - by any group would be benefial to future management / understanding / protection... if the site is under threat (such as ploughing)

Unknown sites - many new sites are found by amatuers and detectorists... and there location, artefacts and stratigraphy would be better served by the relevant county archaeologist being aware of them... after all we can't protect or advise on sites we don't know about - (this leads into the concept of allowing detectorists to continue work on these sites based on specifically agreed guidelines... after all... if every time a detectorist finds a site and reports it.. and the only result is a quick thanks and they are then banned from it - it is hardly a reward for hard work and honesty)

We both have opportunities to pool resources and share information... the question is how....

[BAJR Host]

Dear Paul, the whole episode took place a while ago ( a rather heated exchange) where unfortunate words that suggest my County Archaeologist status was questionable. I am prepared (it is Christmas after all) to put it all behind me, and accept your apology. You have much to say and offer, and the fact we have different views about detecting and what the future holds is no bar on your contributions.

I will remind you and everyone (myself included) BAJR is here for frank and fair discussion... no arguements that descend into complex trails of he said this which infers that which shows this and proves that

I will be keeping a close eye on this thread and would like to see cooperation and answers not misleading questions and recriminations (from anyone)

That said and back to you Paul, it would be useful if you would post on topics other than just this single thread. BAJR is a public forum that not only discusses change in all aspects of Archaeology, but acts on them too... a real forum.

That was a public Information Announcement on behalf of the peace loving anarchist group BAJR

Another day another WSI?

[Petethedig]

Speaking as a Metal Detectorist I for one think that expectations have been set far to high at this moment in time.

I personally record all my finds to 10 fig NGR's, my finds are recorded with PAS and UKDFD and any finds of significant interest are donated with the landowners permission to Bristol City Museum. This offer is open ended and my local FLO has acquired a few Saxon items this year. I charge nothing and ask only for a letter of thanks to my landowners who land I detect. My finds are GPS'ed, they are then logged in my database, they are then recorded with both PAS and UKDFD. I follow archaeological guidelines on preservation/conservation and finally curating the small collection I have. The vast majority of the finds go back to the land owners with paperwork stating where the finds came from. The local HER/SMR have all this information. I don't think there's much I'm doing wrong in the standards I have set myself, but I'm realistic enough to know that after 25 years of doing this that I'm still in my approach a pioneer in a fairly young hobby.
Given time people like myself Gary, SteveB and John will change and are changing attitudes toward this end.

I do believe that I add my own responsible angle to the common heritage, which in my view is not just the domain of a qualified group.

I have always taken the view that recording to significant numbers of detectorist is still something to be won over. Yes there will be a continued loss of recorded material, but I think you'll find that many do keep records that could be used at a later date.
In my view there is a lot of peer pressure being driven hard by growing numbers of recorders, so give us some credit and some space to make sure we reach take off speed. Once we do there's no turning back, but at the moment where at least taxing to the right runway!



Evil to him who thinks evil.