30th June 2008, 12:54 PM
As I understood it the point of the PAS was to assist members of the public with identifications and encourage them to send a record to the HERs. The problem is that as archaeologists we require a much higher level of record keeping detail and archiving quality than most people. This is true across all of our work - I am regularly asked why we have to use film for photography and not digital, or why I think that architects drawings are insufficiently accurate for historic building recording.
In this case the archaeological ideal is a very accurate grid reference for each and every find, together with depth and soil information. In theory, with modern hand-held GPS systems, it should be possible to plot every find to within a metre or so. Indeed it is quite probable that many metal-detectorists do this anyway (?). However whether or not this is done is irrelevant if the resulting records are not made publicly available for wider research purposes. For archaeologists the only acceptable public record is the local HER. Some metal detectorists find local authorities difficult to deal with, and prefer to develop their own registers. The problem is in making sure that all of the information can be found by everyone.
My own view is that a lot of this debate is actually not about metal detecting at all, it is about 'ownership' of the past. One group perceive that another group want to engage with the material remains of past societies in a way which is not theirs. The metal detectorists see a monolithic authoritarian middle-class elite trying to prevent access to knowledge. The archaeologists see a lawless mob of ill-informed enthusiasts destroying the very basis of that knowledge. Both sides have a point, and 'moderates' on both sides acknowledge that.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument (and my own personal opinion is much closer to Paul Barford's than Gary Brun's), it is extremely unlikely in real life that any British government will ever make metal detecting illegal. Sufficient safeguards theoretically exist already, and the public prefer limited police resources to be spent on catching drug dealers than arresting people for digging up Roman coins or putting PVC double glazing in their 16th century house.
Therefore for me the only viable solution is to try and explain to the public why we (archaeologists) like to be very anal about recording and archiving etc. Since this takes a long time and is difficult to do through the written word, I tend to avoid entering into debates about it on public internet forums*, and prefer to do public archaeology events and actually talk to people locally.
*oops, I seem to have got sucked in
Sorry Gary I hadn't read your post before posting this, however I agree it is entirely possible to hold contrary views and still have a civilised discussion. In fact I myself have contrary views on most subjects.
In this case the archaeological ideal is a very accurate grid reference for each and every find, together with depth and soil information. In theory, with modern hand-held GPS systems, it should be possible to plot every find to within a metre or so. Indeed it is quite probable that many metal-detectorists do this anyway (?). However whether or not this is done is irrelevant if the resulting records are not made publicly available for wider research purposes. For archaeologists the only acceptable public record is the local HER. Some metal detectorists find local authorities difficult to deal with, and prefer to develop their own registers. The problem is in making sure that all of the information can be found by everyone.
My own view is that a lot of this debate is actually not about metal detecting at all, it is about 'ownership' of the past. One group perceive that another group want to engage with the material remains of past societies in a way which is not theirs. The metal detectorists see a monolithic authoritarian middle-class elite trying to prevent access to knowledge. The archaeologists see a lawless mob of ill-informed enthusiasts destroying the very basis of that knowledge. Both sides have a point, and 'moderates' on both sides acknowledge that.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument (and my own personal opinion is much closer to Paul Barford's than Gary Brun's), it is extremely unlikely in real life that any British government will ever make metal detecting illegal. Sufficient safeguards theoretically exist already, and the public prefer limited police resources to be spent on catching drug dealers than arresting people for digging up Roman coins or putting PVC double glazing in their 16th century house.
Therefore for me the only viable solution is to try and explain to the public why we (archaeologists) like to be very anal about recording and archiving etc. Since this takes a long time and is difficult to do through the written word, I tend to avoid entering into debates about it on public internet forums*, and prefer to do public archaeology events and actually talk to people locally.
*oops, I seem to have got sucked in
Sorry Gary I hadn't read your post before posting this, however I agree it is entirely possible to hold contrary views and still have a civilised discussion. In fact I myself have contrary views on most subjects.