Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
So your solution is do nothing then...
Not to make it worse. No.
But perhaps there is a middle way.
If the problem is that PAS is short of manpower perhaps you could offer them your services as a recorder, rather than spend time detecting next to the henge? I doubt if they'll dream of doing that themselves, for obvious reasons. Quite what they'll make of BAJR detectorists detecting while they spend time over-stretched with recording I don't know.
I suspect history won't show.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Sadly Paul.... and no offence intended here..... you are in Poland, you are against it happening, but it will happen, some people rather than just saying no... are saying, well.... what can we do... how can we help, lets talk, lets understand what happens... I for one am under no rosey tinged impression, but I will talk from a position of knowing what is happening, rather than guessing. Are you equating a RAlly to a Deer Hunt? what are you talking about [?] perhaps Cambodian red deer ?? er quite ... I will go and tell you what happens, rather than you guessing about it.
And Nigel me old mate... wher did you get the BAJR detectorist bit from?? If you read - I am under direct control of the PAS, so will be a recorder, I will also be learning how to detect while I am there... I will not be detecting on the Henges.. I am not a detectorist, I am an archaeologist... so fortunately the middle way you describe is what will happen... I intend to explain the importance of location and record for lithic finds...
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:quote:Why is it that anything involving metal detectorists automatically becomes controversial? As David rightly says this event is happening, nothing we can do will prevent it. It is not happening on a scheduled site and does not fall under the auspices of 'Our Portable Past', but does fall under the Code of Conduct.
Because I think this just goes to prove that when detectorists adhere to the axis CoP, one which Mr Barford himself gave his blessing to, this is still not enough, he will continue to move the goal posts no matter how much co operation there is.
It becomes contraversial because if it isntr then he has no soap box.
http://www.detector-distribution.co.uk
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Also, interesting point of order here... when people say that detecting threads spin out of control.... hmmmmmmm it seems to be from archaeologists (oh and Nigel)
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
pppps I seem to be agreeing with Nigel, which is nice...
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
Are you equating a RAlly to a Deer Hunt? what are you talking about [?] perhaps Cambodian red deer ??
I dont think it matters in which country it takes place, do you? Yes, I think the analogy is a perfectly good one. One gets their kicks out of hunting for one kind of trophy with their mates, the other from another kind.
Steve, its a bit rich talking about co-operation when a large percent of your detecting fellows from UKDN actually rejected the Code of Practice. In any case, the CoP sets down a (minimum) agreed standard for responsible detecting by individuals, it actually makes no reference to rallies and where they would best be held. But the person offering the land, as I understand it is not a detectorist anyway, so not bound by the Code. And whether detectorists themselves feel it is responsible to target for searching for artefacts the area immediately adjacent to a scheduled site in an area of known archaeological sensitivity is of course a matter for their own informed consciences. Like Nigel, I presume those who freely agreed that the Avebury rally was a mistake will also be boycotting this one on the same principle (are they too "ostriches"?).
Paul Barford
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
Also, interesting point of order here... when people say that detecting threads spin out of control.... hmmmmmmm it seems to be from archaeologists (oh and Nigel)
Just how I have spun out of control other than be opposed to what you are proposing I don't know.
You won't be detecting on the
henge? How Tarmacian. You'll be detecting on the
landscape setting David.
Perhaps you could justify that? After all a lot of good hardworking conservationists are going to be disgusted. English Heritage are hardly going to be thrilled. I doubt if CBA are saying "great" (are they?) Do you have a message for all of them? Either a Tarmac one - "there's nothing there" or a detectorist one "it's legal innit"? Presumably you DO think its the right place for you to be publicly seen metal detecting so a public justification would seem to be appropriate.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Right so that's all settled then. Good night and god bless. PS David can you please try to keep detector talk to the understanding forum where it belongs in future?! [:p]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Thanks Vulpes... got keep those roque elements penned in
Paul ... I will accept that will boycott the event
Nigel ... You will be happy that I am indeed working with the PAS and will not loot the site...
I will let everyone know how it goes... If it goes well I will tell you if it goes bad I will tell you... think of me as a UN pro everyone force... shelled by both sides...
There is no more need for arguement.. I am going, and I hope other like minded archaeolgists will join me... stay happy and get in touch if you want to come
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
There is no more need for arguement.. I am going
Evidently.
I presume when you are swinging your machine David youâll bear in mind that BAJR guidance is âto make sure none of your work ends up straying even close to a Scheduled Ancient Monumentâ and to "put a good 50 metre buffer round it". Always assuming you think the archaeological landscape of this mile long monument extends only for a derisory 50 metres (well Tarmac does, and a particular set of less than heritage-sensitive detectorists do, so it hardly matters that absolutely no-one else does I suppose).
I believe that last year Atkins Heritage (commissioned by English Heritage and the Thornborough Henges Consultation Group) tentatively presented to the public an 8 square mile âexclusion zoneâ relating to various activities seen as threatening to the archaeology. I doubt that will happen but it makes you think, doesnât it? Who knows what will be decided in the end, but whatever it is, having used a detector anywhere in the close vicinity will not be exactly seen as a badge of honour, thatâs for absolute certain. The sad thing is that in this issue you are likely to be at variance with a lot of sensible detectorists. "Liaison without brakes" eh?
