Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
14th January 2014, 07:24 PM
Have recently had to point out to a HER that a group of detectorist 'find spots' appeared (can't prove anything) to be a cynical attempt to disperse/camouflage an undeclared coin hoard in order to provide a 'verified' 'provenance' for the objects to (a) get around treasure law and (b) increase their individual value - having taken advice/made enquiries the HER in question have since suspended what turns out to be a considerable amount of other data from the same source... HER data, due to workload, is rarely checked to the level the curators would like (s'not their fault, I'm sure I'm the only person up to that point who'd had cause to plot that particular set of data, and then gone 'what the f***')
- the upshot is that HER data is only as good as the original source (who may have a different agenda) :face-thinks:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2013
14th January 2014, 07:41 PM
Dinosaur Wrote:the upshot is that HER data is only as good as the original source (who may have a different agenda) :face-thinks:
True! HER find spot data is problematic - I was referring to artefact records produced by HERs from excavation reports, thereby in theory containing all the data Mr Barford is after without having to chase individual units. I'm aware though that only a limited number of HERs do this - it's a lot of work & capacity, as Dinosaur says, is ever-diminishing.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
15th January 2014, 02:08 PM
the problem at the moment is that metal detectorists are the only people currently gathering statistics regarding finds in the plough zone. half of them may well be verging on criminal, some definately are, but there is rarely a requirement from curators for contractors to recover anything from the topsoil with the result that the single largest remnant component of most excavated sites is machined off and ignored. if the pas is telling us anything it is that crucial and irreplacable data is being lost to the machine strippers and that a considerable number of sites must only exist in the plough soil. the other thing to consider is that detecting is a skill. fortunately most detectorists are not very good but it often seems as if the most criminal ones are better.
we need to more detecting ourselves and get good at it.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
15th January 2014, 06:54 PM
++PP
P Prentice Wrote:there is rarely a requirement from curators for contractors to recover anything from the topsoil with the result that the single largest remnant component of most excavated sites is machined off and ignored.
who can adr
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
15th January 2014, 11:03 PM
P Prentice Wrote:the problem at the moment is that metal detectorists are the only people currently gathering statistics regarding finds in the plough zone. half of them may well be verging on criminal, some definately are, but there is rarely a requirement from curators for contractors to recover anything from the topsoil with the result that the single largest remnant component of most excavated sites is machined off and ignored. if the pas is telling us anything it is that crucial and irreplacable data is being lost to the machine strippers and that a considerable number of sites must only exist in the plough soil. the other thing to consider is that detecting is a skill. fortunately most detectorists are not very good but it often seems as if the most criminal ones are better.
Thanks to ignorant / ill informed opinions like this it's a wonder that MD er's bother to share any information with the PAS at all.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
15th January 2014, 11:32 PM
@MiT :- pls explain/expand;
btt-
why are requirements about the ploughsoil so lax?
who can adress this ?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
16th January 2014, 01:54 PM
GnomeKing Wrote:@MiT :- pls explain/expand;
btt-
why are requirements about the ploughsoil so lax?
who can adress this ?
Not to do with metal detecting, but flint.....The English Heritage Research Strategy for Prehistory (consultation draft) does have 'Critical Priority 3: Understanding 'sites without structures' - i.e. flint scatters, but points out that the topsoil is a valuable resource that needs proper evaluation in developer-funded archaeology.
We do (no advert intended
) fieldwalking and sometimes test-pitting and sieving to test this and to mitigate the loss.
But I agree it is not standard, and think of those large developments where the topsoil is removed, sold and sent off site.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
16th January 2014, 02:20 PM
Mike.T. Wrote:Thanks to ignorant / ill informed opinions like this it's a wonder that MD er's bother to share any information with the PAS at all.
go on then - inform me
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
16th January 2014, 06:58 PM
Jack Wrote:Not to do with metal detecting, but flint.....The English Heritage Research Strategy for Prehistory (consultation draft) does have 'Critical Priority 3: Understanding 'sites without structures' - i.e. flint scatters, but points out that the topsoil is a valuable resource that needs proper evaluation in developer-funded archaeology.
Am working on a major infrastructure project now where a significant proportion of the scheme has never been fieldwalked (and bits that have at various times/standards) and never will be, so kiss goodbye to any of the flint scatters which are centainly about, as highlighted by someone's PhD which was, (in)conveniently, a fieldwalking project finding flint scatters on part of the route...
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
17th January 2014, 11:12 AM
Quote:given that the majority of (50%+) of commercial sites are unexcavated, that the topsoil/subsoil is often ignored, and that recovery rate by hand (of coins etc) is very low, :
I SAY~ DETECT AWAY! (at own legal/personal risk of course)
>>if archaeologists percieve loss/damage at sites from detectorists then they need to take steps to recovery that material themsevlves!
[the vast majority of detectorists want to work with the archaeologists....]
Absolutely... as we see from the other recent comments. -- and that goes for know flint scatters too!
So... lets all sit down, face the wall and shout... Some detectorists make a mess and bring detecting into disrepute. some are criminals who use detectors to loot. and some don't find diddly squat. many want to help and be part of archaeology and lets just get over it. Shit happens, but really it ain't that bad. it really ain't ... Now archaeologists ... repeat after me some of them knowingly realise that the archaeology is being stripped/destroyed/ built on... some of us care... some of us don't most of us do care but can't do anything about it. Shit happens... live with it. most of us want to dig archaeology.
Right... now that we have established that nobody and nothing is perfect. ... do carry on.
I agree that a valuable tool would be collection and resource/location spreadsheet. do detectorists find more artefacts in similar areas than archaeolgoists? do archaeologists only really find things in areas where there is activity and therefore more chance for objects not to be lost? or hidden. etc... I hope that the information will eb collated and not used simply as a means to prove something about how terrible detectorists are. as we may as well start a similar one about farmers or developers. anyways...
read this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entert...65351.html
and be honest... be reallly really honest... would we ( that is us as archaeologists) ever have found this items? Answer is probably not in 99% of cases
work together!
