Help BAJR and the PAS at Thornborough

[drpeterwardle]

Dr Peter here, moderator, looking at BAJR at 01:20 after a very busy hot week.

My thoughts are:

1. By definition metal work in secure neolithic contexts is rare. It has happened at Crickley hill and the use of a metal detector to give advance warning of this would have been useful.
2.David said "The big thing here is the potential for locating flint scatters.." therefore by definition metal detectors will not help detect flints as they do not contain enough metal to be detected (they do contain very minor amounts which cause the different colour of flint). I take this statement to mean therefore that this is an exercise about what is in the plough soil.
3. I take the point that metal detector users are interested in recovering recent components of our past which are usually ignored ie artefacts in the the top soil.
4. Can we get rid of this great stereotyping that anybody who uses a a device capable of detecting metal or mineral is bad.

David count me in for a short time on Friday.

Peter

[Paul Barford]

Peter attempts to provide some justification, but:
1) What has been declared to be nationally important are not just the Neolithic features but the whole landscape around the earthworks, and getting that point over was the whole focus of the recent (ongoing) conservationist campaign. Metal objects may have been accidentally lost or deliberately deposited at any time and reflect varying use of that landscape throughout the last few millennia. In particular, the area is a focus of Early Bronze Age activity apparently associated with the henges, and ritually or otherwise deposited metal objects from this period - especially so close to the edge of the monument itself - are significant. There is however no guarantee that a detectorist finding a bit of EBA metalwork (or anything else) on this rally will report it and David or yourself cannot be everywhere at once.

2) This is not a controlled fieldwalking exercise but a metal detecting rally. The manner of collection of evidence (various people picking up random objects from random areas within 1000 acres and reporting a random number of them to several different archaeologists in different places at different times over a period of three days) is not the best way to record the boundaries and internal patterns of density of flint scatters. That flints are in the topsoil we know of course, but this is not the method to record their distribution in a manner that is archaeologically useful.

3) The "artefacts in the topsoil" are part of the archaeological evidence about the use of that landscape and as such to have a real chance to contribute in any substantial way and in any detail to our knowledge of the site their recovery should be in accordance with a systematic search structured within a properly formulated programme which everybody understands and abides to. Conditions which this "metal detecting rally" are unlikely to be able to fulfil.

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

4. Can we get rid of this great stereotyping that anybody who uses a a device capable of detecting metal or mineral is bad.

Well, nobody here said they all were. Some detector-users will be keeping away from this event on principle. Good for them. But its not owning or using the tool which is at issue, it is what it is used for which is. And in the cases we are discussing that is to hunt for archaeolgical artefacts (in this case from an area of known and widely accepted archaeological significance) for personal collection and sometimes sale.

Nobody involved in this almost universal BAJR support of the metal detectorist's "rights" has yet explained why this is different from the guys "saving" the heads of Buddha statues from "weathering away" in the Cambodian jungle and sending them where people can look at them and "look after them". The use of a chisel is not bad, nor are the owners of chisels (I have several), but in this case the use of chisels for artefact hunting... I would like the pro-detectng lobby to explain WHY its not the same, instead of stubbornly insisting that its not and calling us "ostriches".

This shows the terminology you are using is imprecise, which is why I use the term "artefact hunter". The term "metal detector user" is inadeaquate to describe the phenomenon at issue (as you pointed out they have other uses, such as to search for minerals, and you get them in check-in terminals at airports). What is wrong - or insulting - in calling a spade a spade so we have clarity what precisely we are discussing? Closer definition of the phenomenon is a way of avoiding those "stereotypes" and misunderstandings surely.

Paul Barford

[Elgin]

Peter, you seem to imply that you feel the fact that flint scatters are the main issue somehow changes things. I am perfectly well aware that flint is the main element there, as are the detectorists attendees. Collecting of surface flint artefacts is a prominent part of the hobby. My concerns have been based on those facts and aren't allayed by you pointing them out.

"Can we get rid of this great stereotyping that anybody who uses a a device capable of detecting metal or mineral is bad."
I have to say that speaking for myself I'm a bit offended by that. Whatever disagreements Steve and David may have with me they will confirm that I have expended huge effort over several years pushing the precise opposite message.

On that basis I hope you'll accept that my particular concern, the prospect of one or more archaeologists being seen detecting next to the middle henge and sending out a message that its perfectly acceptable, is in no way based upon stereotyping all detectorists as bad and is based purely upon the merits of the particular case. "Acceptable venues comprise everywhere that isn't actually scheduled - official". Well, its pretty much the legal position but I might have hoped that archaeologists would have been in favour of setting the recommended boundaries a little more in favour of archaeology.

So that's my position. Not anti-all detectorists at all, just wanting a bit of sense applied to where detecting is seen as appropriate.

[BAJR Host]

If people want to continue this discussion which has been nicely hijacked, on the correct part of the forum... I would appreciate it.. I would like my request for people to work with me - with the PAS to be slightly less clutterd by arguement and counter arguement.

Any further posts will be deleted on this thread... please continue it on the correct forum section.

This is not banning discussion... only moving it...

Another day another WSI?

[Petethedig]

Well done to you and others David for making the effort to turn up and hopefully record many of the items that may be found. I'm usually against detecting next to sensitive areas like this, but it seems on this occasion that detecting so near to the henge's may help in preventing future plans by Tarmac to advance up to the site.

We as detectorist often do fail to take into account the whole landscape with some of these digs put on. Its worth a debate, but I fear that any such debate would be overtaken by the need to dig rather than the need for a sensible approach in such areas.

The Henge's might just benefit from evidence collected, provided the evidence is forthcoming at the rally. I would think those who have organised this rally will be aware of this and have some plan in place to make sure as much as possible will be recorded.

I look forward to hearing how yours and others efforts are both received and credited David. Deer hunting can be as much about conservation and education as collecting in my personal experience of doing so!

Evil to him who thinks evil.

[BAJR Host]

cheers for that positive post... i quite agree with all you said... and look forward to coming back and telling how it all went... at the end of it... stopping tarmac from any more quarrying here may be an unexpected result. }

Another day another WSI?

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Petethedig
detecting so near to the henge's may help in preventing future plans by Tarmac to advance up to the site

On the contrary, the results of this activity could just as easily be utilised in future planning applications to do just that. This is a very weak justification for holding this rally here. In any case, to have any weight in such a process, such a survey needs to be carried out according to the sort of guidelines laid down by "Our Portable Past".

quote: Deer hunting can be as much about conservation and education as collecting in my personal experience of doing so!

fox hunting, badger-baiting and cock-fighting too, I suppose some might add. Actually I suspect most people (and more people) would learn more by watching deer undisturbed in their natural habitat than lying bleeding to death on the ground after you've shot it to cart bits off to your freezer.

So David, what's the difference between several hundred detectorists taking away bits of the archaeology to scatter them in hundreds of personal collections, and only recording what they want, and Tarmac sponsoring an excavation to take away the archaeology (which goes into a public collection) and recording ALL of it?

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Difference is that because I (and others) will be there (working with/for the PAS) to help record more and to be on hand to deal with any flint scatters, find spots etc ... then it is better than not being there.. To be there is to show that we are taking the 'issue' of Rallies seriously and not burying our heads and hoping that disagreeing will have any effect in the right here and now. I would rather that my presence allowed more to be recorded, that locational data was created and that professional archaeologists were working alongside detectorists, just as detectorists often work alongside archaeologists will be better than none at all.

Tis better to light a candle than to complain about the darkness. - I am under no rosy impression that every detectorist will be saintly… but if I can talk with people as equals, it will advance the understanding, rather than high handedly pronouncing on them. Open minds all round please.



Another day another WSI?

[Elgin]

"at the end of it... stopping tarmac from any more quarrying here may be an unexpected result".

Dear O dear. And your reasons for suggesting that might be the result rather than the precise opposite are....?

In your eagerness to lend your help to this "event" did you consider, for a moment David just WHY permission for a rally in this particular spot has suddenly been granted?

[BAJR Host]

I am afraid I do know... have talked about it... and so have a full picture of what is going on.



Another day another WSI?