28th December 2005, 02:22 PM
Apologies to Paul for re-posting his comments originally posted on Britarch. He makes the points far more clearly than I could.
"There is an interesting discussion of artefact hunting and archaeology going on over on BAJR. http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?...hichpage=1 So far there is eight pages of it. As usual (instead of the more accurate and descriptive term "artefact hunting"), the term "metal detecting" is being used and lulling people into discussing just the "finding" aspect. This means that what is for me the fundamental difference between so-called "detecting" and archaeology is being missed; that the act of hunting the finds is indivisibly linked with their personal collection. The artefact hunters' "interest in the past" is to generate (and expressed by the generation of) a _personal collection_ of objects as the object of study. In the BAJR discussion, a detectorist admitted that purchased objects too can add to that collection (so here context is totally missing from the equation). In such a model, archaeological sites and artefact scatters are merely the source of those collectibles. It is from this fundamental difference in approach to the archaeological record that many of the misunderstandings we have seen over the years ultimately stem. Until this is properly addressed and fully discussed (instead of being generally dismissed), there can be no "bridge-building" because we will not have established the two entirely different platforms from which that "bridge" might be built. Discuss this please on BAJR.
Paul Barford "
He makes some very good points about the differences between artefact collectors and archaeologists. I'm not sure at this stage how it changes my views because currently most artefact hunting appears to be legal. I, like most archaeologists, would like sale of antiquities from any country to be vigourously regulated. If that happens, and I'm not confident that it will anytime soon, then the worst aspects of artefact hunting should be controlled. As for personal collections I may be as guilty as anyone. I've got a nice assemblage collected from various spoil heaps over the years. There is nothing that your average artefact hunter would bother with, but the same argument should apply. So I suppose I'm OK with personal collections, as long as the inportant finds are provenanced, and known to the SMR.
It seems to me that the curation of personal collections is the other part of the artefact hunting hobby that needs as many guidelines as the "finding" process. It's not the side of it that I know or have thought about. The BAJR forum tends to deal with field archaeology so has focussed more on the finding side of it.
"There is an interesting discussion of artefact hunting and archaeology going on over on BAJR. http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?...hichpage=1 So far there is eight pages of it. As usual (instead of the more accurate and descriptive term "artefact hunting"), the term "metal detecting" is being used and lulling people into discussing just the "finding" aspect. This means that what is for me the fundamental difference between so-called "detecting" and archaeology is being missed; that the act of hunting the finds is indivisibly linked with their personal collection. The artefact hunters' "interest in the past" is to generate (and expressed by the generation of) a _personal collection_ of objects as the object of study. In the BAJR discussion, a detectorist admitted that purchased objects too can add to that collection (so here context is totally missing from the equation). In such a model, archaeological sites and artefact scatters are merely the source of those collectibles. It is from this fundamental difference in approach to the archaeological record that many of the misunderstandings we have seen over the years ultimately stem. Until this is properly addressed and fully discussed (instead of being generally dismissed), there can be no "bridge-building" because we will not have established the two entirely different platforms from which that "bridge" might be built. Discuss this please on BAJR.
Paul Barford "
He makes some very good points about the differences between artefact collectors and archaeologists. I'm not sure at this stage how it changes my views because currently most artefact hunting appears to be legal. I, like most archaeologists, would like sale of antiquities from any country to be vigourously regulated. If that happens, and I'm not confident that it will anytime soon, then the worst aspects of artefact hunting should be controlled. As for personal collections I may be as guilty as anyone. I've got a nice assemblage collected from various spoil heaps over the years. There is nothing that your average artefact hunter would bother with, but the same argument should apply. So I suppose I'm OK with personal collections, as long as the inportant finds are provenanced, and known to the SMR.
It seems to me that the curation of personal collections is the other part of the artefact hunting hobby that needs as many guidelines as the "finding" process. It's not the side of it that I know or have thought about. The BAJR forum tends to deal with field archaeology so has focussed more on the finding side of it.