BAJR at Water Newton

[BAJR Host]

Thats the one... sounds a bit like us a wee while back...

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[wombat]

David,

This is getting a little bit off the thread, but i have to assure you that in the organisation for which I work at least, we ensure that we receive a CV off all staff, and check their references wherever possible before going on any project, pipeline or otherwise. Furthermore, myself and my team will be starting work on a pipeline this week, before which we are obliged to undertake a full day of Health and Safety training and inductions, after which i will be briefing the team on the archaeological side of the methodology we will be using.

In terms of metal detectorists, i think that the presence of some kind of nationally recognised code of conduct, agreed by individual detectorists and the societies to which they belong would be a step forward in providing a benchmark for others to recognise the most conscientious members of the hobby.

[garybrun]

I think its very important that Archaeologists put their own house in order first before trying to impose their standards on others. At least get a recognised title.

Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[Alfie]

Shouldnt this thread be on the "understanding metal detecting" part of the forum?

[BAJR Host]

It is moving that way..

However, the interesting archaeolgical discussion from Wombat, about the standards and checking his company enforces, makes me loathe to move it.

Would it be (or this unfair) fair to say that somebody who checks every CV and reference is the exception rather than the rule.. at least if you are dealing with a large project such as a pipeline... having a Health and Safety would normally not really be an option, as it is compulsory with all contractors of such a project..

Vetting is an interesting concept, as it requires a set of conditions and requirements that a person must meet before they are eligible for employment... thats a very intersting concept... but say - for example the requirement is for own transport.. or such like... is that a fair request ( is it legal?? has insurance been sorted - whats the transport for? ) I note you say that CVs are checked 'where possible' tand thats good, but not fair on thse who have been checked if there are those that have not..

I do think the sooner we have a nationally recognised skills verification/training system.. then we will all be better off.

Wombat brings up interesting concepts, however the realities (that fill the BAJR Hotline folder) is that they might be unusual in their care to vetting a person.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Alfie]

“Finds got pocketed” “the odd brooch went missing” I don’t know David, help me out here. How do you reconcile this with your profession, the ethics and standards that we sign up to? What if you were monitoring any other archaeological site? Would you allow this. Do you worry that your presence is basically legitimising something that goes against everything your day job stands for? You must have thought about this and arrived at the conclusion that it was worth sacrificing some of our standards to build bridges so less is lost in the future; but is it?

[Dean]

You really need to define the difference between a metal detecting rally (where searchers have paid good money to keep their finds) with findspot recording, and a methodical archaeological survey of metal detecting.

If findspot recording is compulsory then its an archaeological survey and quite important to be advertised so, to attract more appropriate attendees.

Is there any chance of recording the DEPTH of every item on the next one, and publish results? It might be of great interest to archaeologists, especially when stripping off the topsoil on their own projects. It might also dispel the myth that every object is dug out of undisturbed context.

[BAJR Host]

Good points... Dean... all the nearly 700 artefacts recorded at Water Newton were from the plough soil and none were found deeper than 300mm... most a lot less.

Alfie... it would be the same as asking an archaeological company ... the finds in the topsoil... that was stripped off... if I decided to monitor by sending in a metal detectorist and scanning the spoilheap... would I accuse the contractor of destroying archaeology? Of deliberately not collecting finds? Or do we just turn a half blind eye to archaeologcal contractors not recovering artefacts from the topsoil? (some do, but many don't.. ) here is a recent quote from a couple..

quote:A couple of weeks ago I walked over and got chatting to the gang of archies carrying out a proper dig on the site. Turns out they are going to be working over a large area for the next xxxxx! They are a friendly bunch and the Head Honcho has given xxxxx and xxxxx permission to detect over the whole site, provisos being that we only go over there whilst they are working which is Mon to Fri 9-5. There are trenches everywhere and they have made multiple finds of all sorts of pottery and other artefacts.

We went for the first time yesterday and started detecting the spoil heaps.

I found a nice pot/cauldron leg and a lovely copper alloy Roman bracelet plus a couple of unrecognisable grots. Unfortunately I never got a chance to photograph them before handing them over for recording.

it continues

quote:We had a similar thing xxxxxxxxx, we were allowed on the spoil heaps when the archies were there.... We found 2 staters, hundreds of spindle whorls, and loads of flints, eyes only. It was a good liaison between us. it all stared with a chance meeting of some of the archies in the local pub!

Now I ain't going to name detectorists, archaeological contractors or the sites... BUT... if the detectorists had not gone over the spoilheaps, the finds (some of them absolutely stunning) would have been missed by the contractors (one could say they had already been missed as they were JCB'd out...

So what do we do?? Dual standards? Or support the recording of the topsoil? Will you now require as a standard that detectroists go over a site BEFORE trenches are dug... or will you be willing to stand up and say to contractors that don't... you are deliberatly ignoring artefacts?

I am, as you say bound by standards... If you define archaeology as beneath the plough soil and damage to undamaged archaeology is wrong then I agree... If you define archaeology as within the ploughsoil, then will you ensure that contractors first carry out a full recovery of finds (3D located) from the topsoil?

tricky? }


"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR HostSo what do we do?? Dual standards? Or support the recording of the topsoil? Will you now require as a standard that detectroists go over a site BEFORE trenches are dug... or will you be willing to stand up and say to contractors that don't... you are deliberatly ignoring artefacts?

I have worked on many projects where either I or the curator have asked for all spoilheaps to be detected on a regualr basis to pick up just this kind of thing.

Unless you are going to start asking all contractors to dig everything by trowel and/or seive every grain of soil, I cannot see how this kind of loss can be avoided. This would be unimaginably time-consuming and prohibitively costly, so guess which PPG will be first into the shredder when the developers start squeaking to Gordon and the Broons.


D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

Your powers are weak, Curator

[BAJR Host]

hole in one Sith...

so do we write off the topsoil but then complain when detectorists come along and detect it? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu