30th December 2005, 01:22 AM
Hi BB and Steve,
If i may add my thoughts on this!!
I maybe entirely wrong here and way off mark and if i am i apologise unreservadely but i was lead to believe that the Coin/Artefact is of little importance without the imformation of it's location/context.
Pauls thoughts on this particular subject does indeed provoke thought for some and a confliction for others, like all Archaeologists the protection and management of the finite resource probably ranks at the very top of Pauls list of concerns.As one of the sternist critics of Detecting Practices he would like to see a change in the way the hobby is conducted, i personally have no problem with this and both commend and respect Paul for his persistance in this area.
However my take on the subject of Artefact Hunting/Collecting is that while privite artefact/coin collections will continue so will the discovery of new uncharted sites, more and more detectorists both new and old are becoming aware of the need to record and it is ultimately up to us recording detectorists to promote recording (something which i already do)and through combined responsible detecting and recording practices these sites can be examined and the information added to the SMR/HER. I think that detecting has it's place within Archaeology, Bone and Pottery will go a long way to determine the nature of a site, but with the addition of information given in the form of metallic objects found by detector users going about their hobby must surely also help.Metallic objects have been used by man for well over three millenia, i believe they like other ancient materials have their place in Archaeology, our museums are full of them, the whole perception of Academic thinking can be altered by the discovery of a single coin that maybe of unknown type or mintage or the discovery of a metallic artefact of great rarity, but all of this leads back to the subject of active recording where heirin lies the problem between the detectorist and the Archaeologist.
Best Wishes
Darren
If i may add my thoughts on this!!
I maybe entirely wrong here and way off mark and if i am i apologise unreservadely but i was lead to believe that the Coin/Artefact is of little importance without the imformation of it's location/context.
Pauls thoughts on this particular subject does indeed provoke thought for some and a confliction for others, like all Archaeologists the protection and management of the finite resource probably ranks at the very top of Pauls list of concerns.As one of the sternist critics of Detecting Practices he would like to see a change in the way the hobby is conducted, i personally have no problem with this and both commend and respect Paul for his persistance in this area.
However my take on the subject of Artefact Hunting/Collecting is that while privite artefact/coin collections will continue so will the discovery of new uncharted sites, more and more detectorists both new and old are becoming aware of the need to record and it is ultimately up to us recording detectorists to promote recording (something which i already do)and through combined responsible detecting and recording practices these sites can be examined and the information added to the SMR/HER. I think that detecting has it's place within Archaeology, Bone and Pottery will go a long way to determine the nature of a site, but with the addition of information given in the form of metallic objects found by detector users going about their hobby must surely also help.Metallic objects have been used by man for well over three millenia, i believe they like other ancient materials have their place in Archaeology, our museums are full of them, the whole perception of Academic thinking can be altered by the discovery of a single coin that maybe of unknown type or mintage or the discovery of a metallic artefact of great rarity, but all of this leads back to the subject of active recording where heirin lies the problem between the detectorist and the Archaeologist.
Best Wishes
Darren