Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard

[gumbo]

I think Trowelheads viewpoint offers a common archaeological standpoint and perhaps in an ideal world (to archaeologists) all sites would be discovered by archaeologists.

However, I think the main point for me is that all sites are not discovered by archaeologists and that even if metal detecting was made completely illegal (as it is in some countries)there are enough people who would still go out and find sites with metal detectors and this 'crime' would be near impossible to police. The policy in this country (given the law as it is) is to try and bring 'treasure hunters' into the sphere of reporting and recording their finds which, given the law, I think is a very good thing. However, from last night's programme it is obvious that different 'treasure hunters' need to be treated in different ways. I think in this case by paying a bit more attention to their priorities and interests (as well as the goals of the archaeological assessment)a happier situation could have ensued (and perhaps some better archaeological results also).

I am an archaeologist but I fall into the camp of 'some spatial knowledge of some of the finds found by unsystematic metal detecting is a whole lot better than nothing' and I feel that 'knowledge' can be increased by earning trust (i.e. so people tell you things) rather than just by having the most systematic research design known to man.

A further key point associated with trust between archaeologist and detectorists is over scheduling (also paralleled by conditions now attached to Natural England stewardship schemes). THere is in my opinion a quite ironic situation now occuring where detctorists will find sites and this will allow the landowner to then put the site to set-aside on heritage grounds on the condition that the archaeological deposits are preserved. This then means that the detectorist loses his/her patch and no more finds (which allowed the landowner to enter into the stewardship scheme in the first place) will be made. Am I the only one who thinks this is a stupid situation, a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas! Things like this need to be thought about on a national level or trust between some detecorists and archaeologists will not develop.

[BAJR Host]

and I add my voice to that too... if it was your site you would not let ther... but is was not an archaeologists site... it was found by detectorists.. and they felt the same.... we do suffer from snobbery.. yes we are trained professionals.. some of us with no formal training... but that does not mean we are not allowed to listen to others who might know a thing or two themselves. the programme made uncomfortable viewing for both detectorists and archaeologists... and tony's final challenge was to stop the bigot views (from both groups).. and work out a way to engage on a level where we don't come over as patronising or 'we know best'. detectorists have to respect the immense skills of archaeologists and archaeologists have to acknowedge the immense possibilities and skills of detectorists. the database .. fab... but unshared.. sad... bit of talking as equals and a bit of mutual respect...

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

[garybrun]

There are a detectorists who are treasure hunters... no doubt about that and just do it for money. Even one of the main detecting magazines is called Treasure Hunter.
There are also many who do it for the love of history and never sell their finds.

Times are changing but many are still stuck in the 70's on both sides.




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

[trowelhead]

Mr Burn I’m not getting snobby far from it, I just believe that we deserve to be seen as separate from the amateur world, that is not to say that the amateur would has no part to play in the would of heritage in which detectorists clubs play important roles with regard to understanding our historic past but they do so in an informed but amateur way. If I had been a developer watching last night what would my lasting impression be of the archaeological world and life on site, where would I have thought all my many thousands of pounds paid to archaeologists has been spent? Beardy blokes in tweed jackets.

If I could lay a brick or two in my back garden to create a lovely bar-b-que I wouldn’t then go onto a major residential building site and say "hi guys where do you want the house", I wouldn’t go into Gordon Ramsey’s having baked a scotch egg at home and say "right where’s the Halibut".

Detectorists and amateurs have a role to play but hey guys in the main leave it to the proffesionals.


Close enough for a country job!

[achingknees]

Didn't catch much of the programme, coming in towards the end. I was around a friend's house - a non-archaeologist who has dabbled a bit with detecting. He found the archaeologist quite arrogant and patronising. I think he was right. My mate also picked up on the class differences...

For a true assessment of such a site you need full integration of topsoil finds and buried features. It was good to see the work that the detectorists had done in recording their finds. I do hope that this is widely available though.

The young detectorist made a very valid point when discussing the nature of Viking archaeology. To paraphrase - they didn't mess up the ground as much as in other periods. Not stated in the most academic way, but so what?!

Inevitably, the TT production had to pick up on the conflict tension as it made good TV, but would have liked to have seen a better resolution. A BAJR type marriage councillor was needed (though Tony had a jab at it).

Gary, I too would love to see a topsoil survey of all interventions. I have stated that desire before. It needs to be insisted upon by curators and supported by contractors. A few years ago I worked on a few sites where this occurred - quite successfully often. However, when it is not an explicit method given in a written scheme of investigation it won't happen. Project Managers will continue to see topsoil as something in the way of the archaeology.

As well as metal detecting I would also like to see more study of lithic scatters, not just machining off to find the 'in situ' archaeology. I could find an Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic scatter of national importance but this could never get statutary protection.

Commercial archaeologists are now obsessed by holes. As the guy said (sort of) - they didn't always dig them!

Ooops, better do some work....

[BAJR Host]

Trowelhead... without getting too deep into this, you are being snobby.. 'leave it to the professionals' ? When I go on site... I see many who would be very far from the definition of professional. we suffer from the problems of perception ourselves... looked down on by developers and architects, 'real surveyors' and technical land service groups... so that does not give us the right to look down on others... because 'we are professionals... you ain't so watch it bud'

I do feel like a professional, but am quite willing to listen to people who just might know more than me about certain aspects... to me a coin is a green disc... or a detector is a stick with a hoop on one end.. Too many archaeologists think they know how to use them... no they don't... its not as easy as turning it on...

So I guess you would say to the Geophysics people.. ach... amatuers.. I could do that... (much geophysics done by 'amatuer' groups) or.. you would say to a buildings analyst.. ach... easy... itsa brick wall.. (not of course taking into consideration that this amatuer has a detailed knowledge of brick typology for this area) I certainly hope you would not. You would listen and learn.

The mark of a professional is to not think they are somehow better.

An archaeologist is by definition the best person to carry out archaeology (if they can string together the words that 90% of the population of the UK can understand why) I quite agree... we do archaeology, HOWEVER... detectorists are finding sites, locating finds that we would NEVER find.. NEVER!.. As with your origianl post, it woudl neve been your site to have kept them away from... they found it... and eventually did the right thing... (remember they did not have to) I am sad it took so long... and am big enough to accept that as an archaeologist I had not made it easy for people to approach me... as I was a professional.. and they were untrained amatuers.

thats number one for everyone to ditch... chips off shoulders please.

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

[Steven]

quote:Originally posted by gumbo
A further key point associated with trust between archaeologist and detectorists is over scheduling (also paralleled by conditions now attached to Natural England stewardship schemes). THere is in my opinion a quite ironic situation now occuring where detctorists will find sites and this will allow the landowner to then put the site to set-aside on heritage grounds on the condition that the archaeological deposits are preserved. This then means that the detectorist loses his/her patch and no more finds (which allowed the landowner to enter into the stewardship scheme in the first place) will be made. Am I the only one who thinks this is a stupid situation, a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas! Things like this need to be thought about on a national level or trust between some detecorists and archaeologists will not develop.

Hi All
Whoa, hang on here chap, the method of discovery of archaeologically sensitive sites which are protected through public funds is immaterial. So what if its a MD who "finds" the site or a county arch whilst assessing a ELS or HLS application. The PUBLIC FUNDS(not shouting just emphasising the words as they are vital) are only made available if the site's future is protected. Are you saying that sites found by MDs should be treated differently because their PUBLICLY FUNDED protection might annoy someone?

I think you have approached this issue from the wrong direction in your thinking. If MD are contributing to the greater knowledge then surely they would be happy that their finds have ensured the protection of a site. If in fact they are annoyed because they can no longer detect on that site then doesn't that imply putting personal enjoyment over national interest?

I have received quite a few (sometimes annoyed) questions from MDs concerning why they should declare finds (to the PAS) because then if a landowner wanted to develop their land they would have to pay for archaeology. The implication being that this was a good reason for not declaring. This is the same type of issue you have raised and requires the same response which I always give:

Would you rather, therefore see archaeology be destroyed without record because it might inconvenience the developer?

In response to your question:

Would you rather see public funds made available to protect sites not spent and sites continued to be ploughed because it might inconvenience the detectorist?

The whole point of all publicly funded heritage schemes is to serve the greater good not to enhance an individual. There is a quid pro quo in operation, Britain interprets the Valletta convention with a light touch and detectorists don't have to get licences but they have to self-regulate in return.

Steven

[tom wilson]

quote:Originally posted by achingknees

The young (sic) detectorist made a very valid point when discussing the nature of Viking archaeology. To paraphrase - they didn't mess up the ground as much as in other periods. Not stated in the most academic way, but so what?!

Actually that was a rather ignorant point, as he was comparing Vikings with the likely creators of a ring ditch. Vikings did use foundations, and they dug plenty of holes for other purposes too.

All this talk of whether the [u]evaluation</u> trenches were in the right place was shamelessly artificial. If Time Team wanted to demonstrate why the trenches were placed where they were, they could have given us that information from the Method Statement, rather than having the detectorist stand in the field and say 'I'd just dig that way until I ran out of money'. Would anyone here support that methodology? I think not.

The points about class etc. are well made, but it seems a lot of the editorial swing was based on how much access individuals gave to the camera crews. There was enough material there to do a brutal hatchet job on the detectorists, but since they were happy to talk about any subject with Our Tony, they got very sensitively portrayed. The archaeologist clearly had things he couldn't or wouldn't discuss in public (probably for professional reasons), and was portrayed as remote and arrogant for it.

Telly eh? Load of rubbish.


Edit:
One thing this really highlights for me is the way that a Time Team trench (or one on a research dig) has been wrongly conflated with an evaluation trench. Yes, we put trenches where there doesn't appear to be any archaeolgy. No, we do not go straight for the goodies.

[gumbo]

Steven, i was only talking about trust between archaeologists and detectorists, nothing more.

If you want my opinion on practice then I am in favour of public funds being made available for surface find sites to be preserved in situ, but I feel that the continued practice of the detectorists needs to be thought about when sites have been discovered by detecting. In short 'flexible' preservation in situ (is this a contradiction in terms i hear you say!).

You say that if 'MD are contributing to the greater knowledge then surely they would be happy that their finds have ensured the protection of a site'. I think this is sometimes true and sometimes is certainly not. I also dont necessarily see continued metal detecting on these sites as a matter of 'personal interest' i think it could be well used to carry out research that is of 'national interest' (perhaps even after a 'site' has entered into a 'publicly funded scheme'). However, Im certainly NOT saying i know best or have the answers, I was just flagging up a situation that I felt annoyed some responsible detectorists.

I think all I was saying is that with the various stake holders' mindsets as they are, the present situation is not improving trust thats all. I am aware that Im generalising here and probably we need to talk on a case by case basis so ill shut up now (!), Steven also seems far better informed than me so I dont really want to argue.

[drpeterwardle]

The first thing I want to say is that this is this first time team I have watched in years.

I would like to make a few points.

1. This was not an assessment as it was called it was an evaluation before scheduling. It was an attempt to see what other structures there were and if the artefacts were from part of a larger complex.

2. The amateur topsoil archaeologists (AKA metal dectorists/treasure hunters) clearly did not have an understanding of some basic concepts such as timber construction can be detected.

3. Time Team seemed to be asking if the Treasure law was just - because of the different valuations between the legal and illegal trade in antiquities. However on the TT website they sayand no archaeologist watching the Ainsbrook programme could feel anything but concern about the systematic stripping of the site of metal artefacts over many years. See http://www.channel4.com/history/microsit...metal.html

and in particular We don't allow people to collect birds' eggs any more, for example, he says. 'Yet this is worse than egg collecting. There will still be kestrels producing eggs until we get down to the last half dozen kestrels but once you lose archaeological remains they are gone forever.'

4. Tony Robinson's points at the end there are 50000 metal detector users, they are not going to go away, and it is upto us to do something about the situation.

There must be a better way of working is a point I can agree with.

Peter Wardle
(Richard Hall - the archaeologists is a well known and respected archaeologist he is not an arrogant person)