11th March 2009, 10:42 PM
I do think the issue of public access is a real one, and one that will have to be resolved. I am sure that some sort of compromise can be reached along the lines that Hosty suggests.
I hope that this discussion will be positive and constructive. To answer some of Gary's points:
ALGAO is not a 'union', it is the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers - who are responsible for HERs. Since your document is a "proposal for discussion" it seems to me that it would be appropriate for it to be circulated to the people who will be responsible for implementing it.
Well the "argument amongst yourselves" (ie. archaeologists) will be critical in implementing "getting the data in the historical record"! So if you really "care about...getting the data in the historical record" then you will have to accept that there will need to be discussion amongst those people who are responsible for precisely that.
I don't forget this for one moment, but on the other hand neither should you forget that "we" [u]are</u> archaeologists and that this is an archaeological discussion forum. Therefore there is bound to be some debate from an archaeological perspective. It is also worth remembering that there is a vast spectrum of archaeological opinion with regards to metal detecting - some vehemently opposed and some more sympathetic.
Unfortunately if you want to develop this proposal you will have to find out who is who, and deal with them, in order to better your chances of making it acceptable to the broader archaeological community.
I am not sure that this is really true. There are many within PAS and the HERs who would very much like to engage with the metal detecting community. But this is a two-way street...
I hope that this discussion will be positive and constructive. To answer some of Gary's points:
Quote:quote:Why should it be sent to ALGAO for comment??
What do they have to do with it??
ALGAO is not a 'union', it is the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers - who are responsible for HERs. Since your document is a "proposal for discussion" it seems to me that it would be appropriate for it to be circulated to the people who will be responsible for implementing it.
Quote:quote:All I care about is getting the data in the historical record for the UK. You can argue amongst yourselves who agrees or not.
Well the "argument amongst yourselves" (ie. archaeologists) will be critical in implementing "getting the data in the historical record"! So if you really "care about...getting the data in the historical record" then you will have to accept that there will need to be discussion amongst those people who are responsible for precisely that.
Quote:quote:You must not forget one thing... we are not government... we are not archaeologists.
I don't forget this for one moment, but on the other hand neither should you forget that "we" [u]are</u> archaeologists and that this is an archaeological discussion forum. Therefore there is bound to be some debate from an archaeological perspective. It is also worth remembering that there is a vast spectrum of archaeological opinion with regards to metal detecting - some vehemently opposed and some more sympathetic.
Quote:quote:I personally don't care about... who is who
Unfortunately if you want to develop this proposal you will have to find out who is who, and deal with them, in order to better your chances of making it acceptable to the broader archaeological community.
Quote:quote:yet no one within government/heritage circles acknowledges the heritage contribution it is making at no cost to the public
I am not sure that this is really true. There are many within PAS and the HERs who would very much like to engage with the metal detecting community. But this is a two-way street...