Double Standards

[Dinosaur]

Maybe he means saving a dying gold mine means they don't need to go dig the shiny yellow stuff out of e.g. Scheduled sites in the middle of the night instead? Saves on batteries too :face-approve:

[Stephen Jack]

Jack, his examples of future projects are in France and Italy, and he seems to be adopting the risky strategy of just doing what he wants and then inviting prosecution. I thought that using metal detectors in France was illegal, as in Ireland, unless you have some kind of special permission from a representative of the secretary of state. I seem to remember the last time that the France/metal detector situation situation came up on this forum and a detectorist was unhappy with it, I pointed out the if the French people don't like their law, there are democratic ways to change it.

Stephen, it seems to be the height of hubris to announce that another country's laws are not fit for purpose, and that you are going to break them (possibly) to test them. If they did decide to prosecute you, they've got all the evidence they need on this forum that you knew what you were doing.

Italy, where did I write Italy? please can you post that text. If you had written England and France then you would have been correct.

Where did I say I would be breaking any law, I said I would be calling in the press to highlight the law is a complete shambles.

Using a metal detector in France is not illegal, there are restrictions on where and how they can be used. The understanding of the law I have is based on a legal interpretation carried out by the law college in Nante and not the skewed interpretation of a DRAC representative.

Jack

The OS stuff is about the analysis of data.

Your question; not very original, I think you can do better if you try to see things in a positive light.

[Dinosaur]

With regard to 'public access' to archaeological site information, an example (Manby 2003, 121):-

"Since the publication of Cathy Stoertz's survey [Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds], metal detectorists have been using her maps to target ladder settlements and other enclosure groups on an ever-increasing scale. Some local farmers have been offered considerable sums of money for access and thousands of objects have already been removed from the record."

Putting this information out there just results in destruction of the archaeological resource by a greedy minority to the loss of everyone else? !

[Oxbeast]

All right then, not Italy, my mistake. If you've taken legal advice then good luck to you, it still sounds a bit contested. Perhaps the French government will come to see that their interpretation of the law is 'skewed'. Perhaps not. I can't imagine that that the UK authorities (or the press) would take to it well if a foreign national came here to do what you are suggesting.
I do understand that open source is about data, and I am all in favour of data. Frankly if you start talking about 'treasure hunting' on this forum then you are going to start winding people up.

[the invisible man]

I think this could wind some people up as well: "Archaeologists need to break out form their negative, closed narrow view of the world and look at what is happening around them." Actually I think the tone as much as the content speaks volumes about the poster.

Oxbeast is spot on, it is rather irresponsible and unprofessional to "test the law" in this way, in your own country let alone another one. Will the Nantes law college pay your legal fees? Why not engage the French government and French treasure hunters/MDs in dialogue if you believe the French law is misinterpreteted? Usually laws are in place for a very good reasan. What is your motive. and what has it got to do with you?

You opened another thread with the statement that you are thinking of studying archaeology at university. I recommend this, as you will have the oppurtunity to learn about the wider subject and practice of archaeology as well as critical analysis, how to construct a reasoned argument and generally how to conduct yourself. I am sure that you are willing to learn - I think that we have experienced those who start courses already knowing it all and keen to impart their expertise to fellow students and staff alike (most do not complete).

A wider issue has been raised here though, that is the ongoing debate about public access to HER and similar data. I am firmly on the fence here! I very much take Dino's point, it is foolish to give the treasure hunters a great big X marking the spot. Conversely whose heritage is it anyway, as they say? Is there some kind of middle road? Can we define "bona fide researchers" or whatever who might be allowed access to the data?

[Jack]

Jack

The OS stuff is about the analysis of data.

Your question; not very original, I think you can do better if you try to see things in a positive light.

Which is still not even close to an answer, presumably there is a reason why this question has been asked before.

Its hard to see anything positive about the destruction of the already limited archaeological record.

Maybe your not aware of the damage some (not all) metal detectorists do to archaeological sites.

If you are, and you are continuing to support this destruction your not worth talking, or listening to.

I really hope you do do an archaeological course, and talk to actual archaeologists, hear about and see first hand the loss of vital information such looting causes

[BAJR]

It is one of these eternal issues... and one that many know I have been deeply involved in for some time.

a group of detecting nighthawks plunder and damage, this gives all detectorists an air of (unfairly tarred) suspicion, which creates a general feeling of horror when an archaeologist sees a detectorist in a field, this leads the detectorist to fel that the elitist arcaheologist is picking on them for the crimes of others, and if they had been talked to rather than snubbed or talked down to, then they would be happier, but what happens is they then distruct the archaeologists, who in turn, find the detectorists a closed and secretive group (find an open detecting forum for example) thus perpetuating the cycle of mistrust and distrust.

The more we do talk... and hey if it is robustly then what teh hell, its stil talking (I and a few others do it on detecting forums, and I never take things too personally! ) so lets get it out, and perhaps seeing the other views may be a step forward.

[trainedchimp]

alternatively, metal detectorist talks to us, tell us he's planning to do something that's probably illegal, just to see if it really is and accuses people (unnamed, just) of plagiarism and falsifying archaeological data... And then is surprised to find a lot of people telling him that these aren't necessarily good ideas?

[BAJR]

In this particular case, it is very much a case in point... The archaeologist is the enemy... hostile and stupid... the detectorist a paragon of virtue, trying only to discover that which the archaeologist will never find... etc........ reverse the terms archaeologist/detectorist where appropriate.

Stephen jack does me no credit to think I won't know the laws in France... indeed it is complicated, however... Detecting in France is illegal without appropriate licence. simples.

In broad terms the law says that to search on any land be it your own or someone elses, not only do you have to have the landowners permission in writing, but by virtue of the fact that you are searching for objects which could concern/interest prehistory, art or archaeology you are required to obtain administrative authority from the Prefect of the Region. This authority comes in the form of a license which may be issued after reference to the searchers identity, competance, experience and method of searching. Regard is also taken of the location, scientific objective and the duration of the searches to be undertaken.

Failure to take notice and act upon this could result in the confiscation of the metal detector being used and a fine.

It is believed that beach detecting falls outside of this law.

If your French is good enough you may be able to glean more info from the following site:
http://www.tresors.com.fr/ When you get on the home page scroll down to the link to la-Loi.

So in terms of being confused etc... its not.... in terms of being strict... it is - surprisingly this is the same for archaeologists as well... so no need to feel vicitmised, rather you are being treated in the same way as an archaeologist. Detecting finds artefacts.. and I will always always push for recording. just the simple act of recording.. I don't want to take it all... just know about it.

Thanks

[chrysalis]

Hi everyone

This may need to be started on a new thread but is relevant to the general thrust of discussion here... there are many uses of HER data other than just public information and informing DBAs for planning. One of the main ones in rural areas (such as the Yorkshire Wolds) is to inform the production of base maps for agri-environment schemes. And one of the conditions of entry by farmers into the current agri-environment schemes in England, Environmental Stewardship, is that they do not permit metal detecting on their land. If they are found to be permitting detecting they are in breach of a legal agreement and funding will be reclaimed from them. While this is a voluntary scheme and farmers are not required to enter it can often be lucrative for them in terms of farm maintainance payments etc and so there is fairly high coverage of rural archaeological sites. Natural England (who administer the schemes on behalf of Defra) have in-house archaeologists of advise on archaeology/farming issues to help further protect these sites and assign funds to undertake (sensitive) projects to improve their condition. NE works closely with EH on improving the condition of monuments @ risk. Without the baseline data from HERs they can do nothing however. So adding sites to the HER can lead to the protection of 'treasure' and archaeological sites in a far more direct way than most people might think.
While nighthawks can then persist when permission is not granted by the landowner at this stage the police are able to get involved and it is a matter for the law.


p.s. as an aside (not relevant to this thread) I ought to add that after the recent cuts NE are due to lose 1/3rd of their staff and as most of the archaeological community isn't aware of the vast amounts of money they pour into archaeology the in-house archaeologists are looking like an easy target - some regions are down to one staff member to cover 6 counties already.