Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
14th January 2008, 10:19 PM
Didn't know whether to post this on the detectorist site or here. Anyway, did Yorkshire Archaeology deliberately avoid digging trenches on the sites suggested by the detectorists, simply because they were detectorists? The detectorists seemed to think so, and I was disappointed that they felt so disillusioned by the experience of working with archaeologists. What did everyone else make of the programme?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
14th January 2008, 11:43 PM
I thought it was a good programme and quite an accurate assessment of the 'state of play' as it is at the moment. Resolutions and the best way to move forward are complicated and will not be easy, but the programme provides a useful 'discussion document'.
A couple of points:
I thought it was interesting when Tony said what can the ARCHAEOLOGISTS do to resolve the situation at the end. Is this correct?
The way the programme was edited, I had less sympathy with the younger detectorist, who called himself a 'treasure hunter'. However, when the guy was talking to Tony on site towards the end of the programme he seemed anything but a simple 'treasure hunter'. I then had the impression that the archaeologsts could have helped themselves by taking the detectorists to the pub right at the start and just having a good chat about everything. It seemed like the archaeologists expected to be trusted (?as professionals) but that the detectorists had to earn trust. Perhaps this was a accurate assessment on the part of the archaeologists, but the detectorists didn't need to be made to feel like that, hence the (?) missed opportunities on site.
By the end of the programe I was left with a niggling feeling that there must be better ways of making some detectorists want to be involved in reporting and recording their finds, and that one way might be for archaeollogists to follow up their interests, even if they seem bizzarre at first.
Im sure a lot of the above impressions are from the editing of the programme, so Im not even sure of my actual opinions on things. Nevertheless it was very interesting. Why dont Time Team do more of these programmes when a project is followed for a while rather than the (in my opinion) now approaching stale 3-day format. The programmes I have liked where they did longer shoots were in London and Ely (plus some others I forget), a lot less lightweight.
Finally, the summing up of the site results seemed a bit strange. They said there was almost nothing but then didnt discuss the pits with Viking finds in them or whether the had carbon dated the burial. Also, there are a number of pre historic sites including enclosures re-used for burial in the e-med period in that part of the country. Surely at the very least some similarities/contrasts with other examples and their significance could have been drawn?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
14th January 2008, 11:54 PM
I think archaeologists should write in a top soil survey on every dig.
There are plenty of detectorists who would help you for no payment whatsoever.
This "rift" has got to stop and the historical record must be given priority.
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
15th January 2008, 12:00 AM
I missed the start of ths programme, but:
a) the idea that the archaeologists avoided certain areas just because they were suggested by the detectorists is ridiculous.
b) this was an assessment.
c) I agree that a lot seems to have been left unspoken or the result of editing bias.
d) I agree that the longer-term TT programs are better; by orders of magnitude IMHO.
e) The detectorists claimed to be getting 1/8th of the money they'd have got if they'd sold the objects themselves. I was under the impression that people got market rate in these circumstances; is that naive of me?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
15th January 2008, 12:05 AM
Ah yes on your point e tom that was interesting, as was the implication that museums cant afford much to buy treasure so the valuation is made lower.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
15th January 2008, 12:08 AM
phew... what a programme ... a very very honest prog... made me feel uncomortable a few times... both for the detectorsits and for the archaeologists... I think that was the point.... is this not a bit daft... is it not stupid? Why not step forward.. (like certain crazy people not a million miles from here... and soem brave archaeologists and detectorists!) Why do we have to be brave? why afraid?
Gary is right... so lets get on with it.... No Control ... Yes Cooperation
As I have said on other forums...
Without knowing all the reasons... the archaeologists put trenches at locations where there were features... which makes sense ... we would want to 'hit' featrues such as pits and ditches to get evidence out of... put trenches where there are no 'targets... it is like you digging in places where you don't have a signal.
Although I agree in the main with the experiment... if you look at the results in detail, you will see that the spread of finds is clustered around wher their was something.. though this can disapate with time... and potato ploughing is DEEPLY damaging..
So I would have put a larger trench in the area of finds concentrations... however I would also like to know what I am dealing with first... This is like going into a dark room with a torch... rather than just hoping for the best.. and digging blindly.
So YES - I would have listened to the detectorsits... and YES I would also have explained why many of the trenches wer not in the location of finds... rather they were located on features...
As would I... and they did put in a trench there...
Without knowing all the reasons... the archaeologists put trenches at locations where there were features... which makes sense ... we would want to 'hit' featrues such as pits and ditches to get evidence out of... put trenches where there are no 'targets... it is like you digging in places where you don't have a signal.
So yes this is a forum to talk about it... as I expect others may steer clear of honest talk.... and thats what we need.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
15th January 2008, 12:13 AM
have you been taking parrot pills or was it a double whammy??
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
15th January 2008, 09:20 AM
ooops.... sorted!
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
15th January 2008, 09:28 AM
Did I miss a meeting or was I watching a different channel. Were the detectorists payed proffesionals who had spent many years in the field mastering the skills of site characterisation and site phasing using geophysics and topographical survey with a wealth of university qualifications behind them or where they a couple of treasure hunters who had flogged off many a find in the past and would (by his own admission) do so in the future. No wonder EH didnt dig in areas they wanted because they would have been back after the excavation and cleaned house.
If detectorists are to be used they should be qualified archaeologists or at the very least trusted members of a detectorist club not cheeky JacK Sparrow and his dodgy mate.
If it had been my site I wouldnt have let them anywhere near it and as for EH why havnt they made moves over the last few years to Schedule the area? I would have prosecuted the pair of them. We shouldnt pander to these people they are robbing our heritage and I thought the show set a bad example and showed archaeology to be amateur, cheap and undesisive.
Close enough for a country job!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
15th January 2008, 09:40 AM
And your reaction trowelhead is typical of "payed professionals who had spent many years in the field mastering the skills of site characterisation and site phasing using geophysics and topographical survey with a wealth of university qualifications behind them" and think they know it all.
Just because you have an ology doesn't mean that you have the sole right to the heritage.
I know many a detectorist who could run rings around you on their knowledge of finds and they have no degree.
I agree it does show archaeology as amateur, cheap and indecisive... maybe that what a lot of it is and will continue to be viewed by some in this light while the "old school" still go around preaching their dinosaur rhetoric.
The one thing I like best about Bajr is that you can discuss things and many are not afraid to put their head above the parapit. You have made your views known and I respect them... I dont agree with them but thats another thing isnt it.
I wish more archaeologists would be open on their feelings about these "rifts" and have their say... but don't go all snobby on me because you have a degree.
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
