15th December 2005, 12:01 PM
Quote:quote:
A scattering of nails and bolts might betray the location of an old house or fence, a large lump of iron might be the base of a bloomery or smithy.
Quote:quote:
Or the large lump of iron could be (and usually is) a plough share. I don't know anyone who sells the items they find, unless it is of some value of which half is given to the landowner. So I can't completely agree with the view that we are only interested in the 'bling factor'.
This is part of the problem. How will we, as archaeologists know if a large lump of iron is the base of a bloomery or a plough share if it's not documented properly. Metal detecting is an extremely useful tool in archaeology and in my opinion necessary on many sites, but it needs some guidelines so everyone is clear on what should be done. I honestly think that no one on this site has a problem with metal detecting as a hobby or as part of an excavation, the problem comes when we lose valuable information because something wasn't recorded properly. Archaeology and metal detecting are both destructive, once you remove something from the ground, you destroy its context, you can't go back and have another look at a different date because its not there anymore!
Unfortunately there are people on both sides of this argument who cannot see the other person's point of view. At the end of the day, its our heritage that is being lost (There goes the H word again!) whether because of a poor excavation or a metal detectorist not recording where a find was made. I find that really sad
It's not that difficult really