27th December 2005, 04:50 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
Unfortunately, assumption and mock indignance rules the day.
Troll. I'm not sure where you get the idea from that there was any 'indignance' (mock or otherwise) on my part. Perhaps I should insert a lot more smilies in my text.
Quote:quote:
If you guys were banned as a "hobby", I really could`nt care less what you did after that.No more so than I could care less as to what ex-hunters do now in Scotland.
Very sound hearts and minds policy you guys have. Metal Detecting is a hobby, and it will take a long time for any legislation banning it as a hobby to come into effect. As such, your 'position' is unlikely to encourage any MD to care much about what you think. It is your right, as it is the legal right of any detectorist to pursue his/her hobby within the guidlines as has already been stated.
Quote:quote:
My main grief here is a simple one:this thread began with an open and informative environment where constructive dialogue was underway. For some reason best known to yourselves, a pubescent display of emotion tennis broke out and induced vomit in a goodly few of us.
I am sure Steve-B will be happy to continue his dialogue with you...
The 'emotion tennis' you witnessed between Steve-B and I is foreplay compared to the real discussions we have. I am sure you have had 'heated' discussions with your own colleagues, perhaps more so. You don't have the monopoly on it.
Quote:quote:
Metal detecting is a seriously contentious issue with most professional archaeologists-as poaching is with most gamekeepers.
Poachers now? That 'mock indignation' you mentioned earlier now has grounds to be not too far from the truth. However, I have been called worse by people with far more expertise than you Troll, so it doesn't worry me too much....
Quote:quote:
It would be a far more useful thread here if we were to discuss the ethics of the "hobby" and perhaps hammer out some common ground.
The crux of the matter. Ethics. Define 'ethics' for me. Pound to a pinch of whatever you like that it doesn't fit the bill.
Quote:quote:
Please, I also find it a tad annoying when an MD claims a lack of "understanding" on the part of archaeologists-most of whom are highly qualified professionals.
Highly qualified in what? Archeologists aren't the only people with 'qualifications'. Some of us have qualifications which are actually productive to society. You have obviously failed to understand what I said. I don't know you, so I am unable to determine if you are being obtuse or not. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I didn't make myself very clear.
The Law of the Land has given MD's the right to pursue their hobby as they please. So long as the landowner has given permission to detect on his/her land, and they do not detect on an Scheduled site or monument, they can do so. What MD's do with anything they find is decided between them and the landowner, except where it comes under the Treasure laws. That is how it is. There is nothing any archaeologist can do about it. So, if there is to be any discussion between archaeologists and detectorists about what should be done with the 'common heritage' it is done so on the understanding that the detectorists are doing so voluntarily, and are not being forced into it. Your following comment Troll, indicates that you have no idea of the extent of the problem.
Quote:quote:
An MD can be seen as an individual that has got hold of one single bit of simple kit and choses to apply it in complete contempt of the views of many. It`s not going to be an easy ride on this thread by any means.But, please, don`t assume that an outcry from the MD community against moves to protect our heritage through legislation will improve your collective reputations-quite the opposite.
'...views of the many.' Care to put a number to that 'many'? Bearing in mind that there are an estimated 20,000 detectorists in the country (some would say far more) your argument of an MD as an individual melts away. How many 'professional' archaeologists are there in the country?
In order to put you in the picture about what this is really all about, I will ask you this question again, but in more detail.
When a JCB rips the topsoil from a site, without any prior examination, the excuse is given that anything in the topsoil is of no use in the excavation because it is out of context. This remains the case everywhere until, that is, a MD finds something. Suddently it is of utmost importance to the understanding of the archaeology of the site.
Why is this the case? No answer has yet been given. Once an answer has been given, we can then move on to the question of 'ethics'.
There is no way Troll, that I expected an easy ride on this thread. I'm a realist, and am well aware of the 'contempt' many archaeologists have for detectorists. However, I'd hoped that the members of BAJR, being associated with Hosty, would be somewhat more enlightned than the majority of archaeologists. Seems I was wrong in that assumption.
T.I.M. I agree with you 100% on the futility of legislation. People want to create laws to stop those who have contempt for the law. The vast majority of detectorists (responsible detectorists if you like) abhor the activities of the s**theawks. Not only are they robbing the heritage of the country etc, they give the honest, law abiding detectorists a bad name, only because they use metal detectors as part of their illegal activities. A bit like archaeologists being blamed if a JCB were used to break into a bank. Archaeologists use JCB's, therefore it must have been them.......Not fair is it?
I apologise if I've given you any offence regarding the 'ban'. The statement was meant collectively, not pointing to any individual in particular.
I'm sure if an application was given to EH proposing to machine through medieval contexts would be treated with disdain, as has been shown on 'Time Team'
. The problem is that not all applications go through EH, and I am sure if you were to have an informal chat with your colleagues over a beer or two, you'd find out that it is not a rare occurence.The problem is, what can we do to salvage what is left of the heritage? It would seem that any detectorist who offers the proverbial olive branch is going to have to 'run the gauntlet' first (which, to be honest, was not unexpected). This being the case, I'd like to know if Archaeologists, in general, are truely serious about getting detectorists to acknowledge the need to record and protect what they find.