Thornborough "debate"

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Its OK merc... Paul is not wanting to agree or disagree with us... he just wants to have a go at detectorists .

Eh? It's not about detecting, its about watching sites being ploughed into oblivion and being happy we can pick up the finds afterwards, whether using a metal detector or our eyes. I argue that this is not the way forward in mitigating plough damage and do not think that until we take real steps to mitigate this and any other kind of damage due to landuse, we are justified in calling it "preservation in situ", or "heritage management". And suggestions of "help" picking up the pieces readlly does not make it so in my book.

quote: after some of us have forgotten what being an archaeologist is..

I hope that was not a personal comment aimed at me just because I do not agree with your opinion on artefact hunting and collecting.

I think there are very serious limitations on what one can "learn about the past" or even an individual site on the basis of artefact hunting and collecting. Especially if (in the case Gary Brun picked up on) the site is Neolithic and the main artefact types being sought are metallic items that are detectable at variable depths by an electronic tool. As you point out, the only way we can find the pot and flint by fieldwalking is if they are in the upper few milimetres of ploughsoil which is not a viable sample of the patterning of the whole topsoil assemblage at any one time.

quote: Preservation is situ is very important..

Hmmm. The ideology of PARIS is fundamental to a lot of thinking which underlies the way archaeology is done and organized today, and not just in the UK. Its the balance between this and the "digitupnow" or "useitupnow" ideology which is where I part company with the pro-artefact hunting lobby among others.

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
I intend to fund it as mcuh as I expect Paul to organise it.

Hmmm. well, it seems to me that - ironic or not - conducting a proper survey of this topic is not something one guy can finance or another individual organize alone. Its more something that should be tackled (and urgently) by some larger concerns and by putting some more serious thought and resources into it. EH made a start, but seem to have stalled in recent years (where's the Owmby report?).

I have my problems with the details of the Nosterfield experiment (there's a long post in Britarch about them), but I think they are an important element in the discussion of which "Ripping up history" and MARS etc were the well-overdue harbingers... There is a problem here much more weighty than just how (with or without a metal detector) to comb the debris field after destruction has occurred to a site allegedly "preserved in situ".

Nosterfield raises [u]that</u> question which has nothing whatsoever to do with metal detecting.

Paul Barford