15th January 2008, 11:31 AM
Didn't catch much of the programme, coming in towards the end. I was around a friend's house - a non-archaeologist who has dabbled a bit with detecting. He found the archaeologist quite arrogant and patronising. I think he was right. My mate also picked up on the class differences...
For a true assessment of such a site you need full integration of topsoil finds and buried features. It was good to see the work that the detectorists had done in recording their finds. I do hope that this is widely available though.
The young detectorist made a very valid point when discussing the nature of Viking archaeology. To paraphrase - they didn't mess up the ground as much as in other periods. Not stated in the most academic way, but so what?!
Inevitably, the TT production had to pick up on the conflict tension as it made good TV, but would have liked to have seen a better resolution. A BAJR type marriage councillor was needed (though Tony had a jab at it).
Gary, I too would love to see a topsoil survey of all interventions. I have stated that desire before. It needs to be insisted upon by curators and supported by contractors. A few years ago I worked on a few sites where this occurred - quite successfully often. However, when it is not an explicit method given in a written scheme of investigation it won't happen. Project Managers will continue to see topsoil as something in the way of the archaeology.
As well as metal detecting I would also like to see more study of lithic scatters, not just machining off to find the 'in situ' archaeology. I could find an Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic scatter of national importance but this could never get statutary protection.
Commercial archaeologists are now obsessed by holes. As the guy said (sort of) - they didn't always dig them!
Ooops, better do some work....
For a true assessment of such a site you need full integration of topsoil finds and buried features. It was good to see the work that the detectorists had done in recording their finds. I do hope that this is widely available though.
The young detectorist made a very valid point when discussing the nature of Viking archaeology. To paraphrase - they didn't mess up the ground as much as in other periods. Not stated in the most academic way, but so what?!
Inevitably, the TT production had to pick up on the conflict tension as it made good TV, but would have liked to have seen a better resolution. A BAJR type marriage councillor was needed (though Tony had a jab at it).
Gary, I too would love to see a topsoil survey of all interventions. I have stated that desire before. It needs to be insisted upon by curators and supported by contractors. A few years ago I worked on a few sites where this occurred - quite successfully often. However, when it is not an explicit method given in a written scheme of investigation it won't happen. Project Managers will continue to see topsoil as something in the way of the archaeology.
As well as metal detecting I would also like to see more study of lithic scatters, not just machining off to find the 'in situ' archaeology. I could find an Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic scatter of national importance but this could never get statutary protection.
Commercial archaeologists are now obsessed by holes. As the guy said (sort of) - they didn't always dig them!
Ooops, better do some work....