15th December 2005, 03:50 PM
Quote:
"What I would like to see, and I know Hostie is of a similar mind, is a field survey carried out, with archaeologists and detectorists working together. The techies would mark out find spots with coloured flags, the archies would then plot, dig, and record the item found. After lunch, the archies could have a go at teching, and the techies would plot, dig and record the finds. Each getting experience of the others method of working.
I have suggested earlier that one of the best ways to protect a site from 'nighthawks' is to carry out a similar type of survey. If anyone knows of any such site and is willing to put a crew of archaeologists together, I'm sure I could convince a few techies to do the same."
Hang on a mo.. call me simplistic but, what you're saying here is that the best way to prevent a site being looted is to strip it first? what if the site in question proves to lie very close to the surface? lets call it a Saxon cemetery.
In this case the artefacts detected lie within the context of grave cuts and the only options open to you are to are:
A: To professionally excavate the site without a pre-arranged source of funding or research proposal/agenda.(this has occurred before, the archaeologists in question were forced to resort to the Time Team..)
B: Remove all the metal artefacts without regard for their context,or the integrity of the features.
C:Leave the site undisturbed, but, thanks to the involvement of many detectorists, with a much higher profile than it started with.
This sort of reasoning fails to take on board the whole concept of context, it doesn't recognize that items of "bling" are just a part of a site, not the POINT of it.
However, if Mr Hosty does concur with this idea, perhaps I've misinterpreted the posting.
Throwing in the trowel.
"What I would like to see, and I know Hostie is of a similar mind, is a field survey carried out, with archaeologists and detectorists working together. The techies would mark out find spots with coloured flags, the archies would then plot, dig, and record the item found. After lunch, the archies could have a go at teching, and the techies would plot, dig and record the finds. Each getting experience of the others method of working.
I have suggested earlier that one of the best ways to protect a site from 'nighthawks' is to carry out a similar type of survey. If anyone knows of any such site and is willing to put a crew of archaeologists together, I'm sure I could convince a few techies to do the same."
Hang on a mo.. call me simplistic but, what you're saying here is that the best way to prevent a site being looted is to strip it first? what if the site in question proves to lie very close to the surface? lets call it a Saxon cemetery.
In this case the artefacts detected lie within the context of grave cuts and the only options open to you are to are:
A: To professionally excavate the site without a pre-arranged source of funding or research proposal/agenda.(this has occurred before, the archaeologists in question were forced to resort to the Time Team..)
B: Remove all the metal artefacts without regard for their context,or the integrity of the features.
C:Leave the site undisturbed, but, thanks to the involvement of many detectorists, with a much higher profile than it started with.
This sort of reasoning fails to take on board the whole concept of context, it doesn't recognize that items of "bling" are just a part of a site, not the POINT of it.
However, if Mr Hosty does concur with this idea, perhaps I've misinterpreted the posting.
Throwing in the trowel.