22nd July 2006, 11:10 AM
Peter, you seem to imply that you feel the fact that flint scatters are the main issue somehow changes things. I am perfectly well aware that flint is the main element there, as are the detectorists attendees. Collecting of surface flint artefacts is a prominent part of the hobby. My concerns have been based on those facts and aren't allayed by you pointing them out.
"Can we get rid of this great stereotyping that anybody who uses a a device capable of detecting metal or mineral is bad."
I have to say that speaking for myself I'm a bit offended by that. Whatever disagreements Steve and David may have with me they will confirm that I have expended huge effort over several years pushing the precise opposite message.
On that basis I hope you'll accept that my particular concern, the prospect of one or more archaeologists being seen detecting next to the middle henge and sending out a message that its perfectly acceptable, is in no way based upon stereotyping all detectorists as bad and is based purely upon the merits of the particular case. "Acceptable venues comprise everywhere that isn't actually scheduled - official". Well, its pretty much the legal position but I might have hoped that archaeologists would have been in favour of setting the recommended boundaries a little more in favour of archaeology.
So that's my position. Not anti-all detectorists at all, just wanting a bit of sense applied to where detecting is seen as appropriate.
"Can we get rid of this great stereotyping that anybody who uses a a device capable of detecting metal or mineral is bad."
I have to say that speaking for myself I'm a bit offended by that. Whatever disagreements Steve and David may have with me they will confirm that I have expended huge effort over several years pushing the precise opposite message.
On that basis I hope you'll accept that my particular concern, the prospect of one or more archaeologists being seen detecting next to the middle henge and sending out a message that its perfectly acceptable, is in no way based upon stereotyping all detectorists as bad and is based purely upon the merits of the particular case. "Acceptable venues comprise everywhere that isn't actually scheduled - official". Well, its pretty much the legal position but I might have hoped that archaeologists would have been in favour of setting the recommended boundaries a little more in favour of archaeology.
So that's my position. Not anti-all detectorists at all, just wanting a bit of sense applied to where detecting is seen as appropriate.