3rd December 2005, 12:42 AM
Greetings Steve-Many thanx, lots to digest so I will only ask one question that really does disturb me! Well, two actually
It`s only really been 14 years or so since it`s generally been accepted that, when and, if a hole needs to be dug in an area likely to impact upon archaeological deposits-an archaeologist should do it. Many detectorists have tried to tell me that they only scratch about in the top few inches-something I dispute in the strongest possible terms-how do we stop the destruction of context whilst detectorists go about their "hobby"? My second question relates to the disgusting trade in detected artefacts advertised in the back of so many detecting magazines(and on a certain website).If we are indeed making inroads into compromise between the pros and the antis-why is the metal detecting community not policing itself? Have many questions but, am old and knackered after slopping about in the mud...will come back another time.Many thanks for an interesting and informative thread.
It`s only really been 14 years or so since it`s generally been accepted that, when and, if a hole needs to be dug in an area likely to impact upon archaeological deposits-an archaeologist should do it. Many detectorists have tried to tell me that they only scratch about in the top few inches-something I dispute in the strongest possible terms-how do we stop the destruction of context whilst detectorists go about their "hobby"? My second question relates to the disgusting trade in detected artefacts advertised in the back of so many detecting magazines(and on a certain website).If we are indeed making inroads into compromise between the pros and the antis-why is the metal detecting community not policing itself? Have many questions but, am old and knackered after slopping about in the mud...will come back another time.Many thanks for an interesting and informative thread.