15th January 2008, 12:43 PM
Steven, i was only talking about trust between archaeologists and detectorists, nothing more.
If you want my opinion on practice then I am in favour of public funds being made available for surface find sites to be preserved in situ, but I feel that the continued practice of the detectorists needs to be thought about when sites have been discovered by detecting. In short 'flexible' preservation in situ (is this a contradiction in terms i hear you say!).
You say that if 'MD are contributing to the greater knowledge then surely they would be happy that their finds have ensured the protection of a site'. I think this is sometimes true and sometimes is certainly not. I also dont necessarily see continued metal detecting on these sites as a matter of 'personal interest' i think it could be well used to carry out research that is of 'national interest' (perhaps even after a 'site' has entered into a 'publicly funded scheme'). However, Im certainly NOT saying i know best or have the answers, I was just flagging up a situation that I felt annoyed some responsible detectorists.
I think all I was saying is that with the various stake holders' mindsets as they are, the present situation is not improving trust thats all. I am aware that Im generalising here and probably we need to talk on a case by case basis so ill shut up now (!), Steven also seems far better informed than me so I dont really want to argue.
If you want my opinion on practice then I am in favour of public funds being made available for surface find sites to be preserved in situ, but I feel that the continued practice of the detectorists needs to be thought about when sites have been discovered by detecting. In short 'flexible' preservation in situ (is this a contradiction in terms i hear you say!).
You say that if 'MD are contributing to the greater knowledge then surely they would be happy that their finds have ensured the protection of a site'. I think this is sometimes true and sometimes is certainly not. I also dont necessarily see continued metal detecting on these sites as a matter of 'personal interest' i think it could be well used to carry out research that is of 'national interest' (perhaps even after a 'site' has entered into a 'publicly funded scheme'). However, Im certainly NOT saying i know best or have the answers, I was just flagging up a situation that I felt annoyed some responsible detectorists.
I think all I was saying is that with the various stake holders' mindsets as they are, the present situation is not improving trust thats all. I am aware that Im generalising here and probably we need to talk on a case by case basis so ill shut up now (!), Steven also seems far better informed than me so I dont really want to argue.