Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
19th January 2014, 11:45 PM
geo Wrote:With paper thin profit margins the norm today one would expect senior management to consider very carefuly if to go ahead with the retrieval of lots of unstrat finds from spoil heaps. The cost implications this would bring with respect to conservation, curation and adding the info to the final report may well tip the project into the red. I have experienced this a few times when voluntering as a detectorist, where the Senior PO has told me that they now have a representative sample of RB finds so the rest can be left in the spoil.
That's a fair point but then we don't throw pottery away or other finds away in order to keep the post ex budget down. In fact coins usually provide better dating than pottery so we should be keeping all of them. If only a sample is kept then it's the couple left behind that might well have provided the crucial date for the deposit / feature.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
20th January 2014, 12:09 PM
I agree ,but it is not always the case as i have seen ceramic material on a busy site also culled. To get back on topic i am very much a believer that MD's should be a part of all excavation strategies and having been involved is such exercises for the last 25 or so years remain convinced that a detector in capable hands is a must use tool. There are issues and some have been touched upon by a number of posters ,but PO's need to be pragmatic in their approach and not get so worried by the "grey areas" of archaeological ethics in using detectors and especially volunteers.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
20th January 2014, 12:14 PM
BAJR Wrote:and from you too PP...
I prefer hard facts. 
merely making the point that yiou cant complain abnout unsupported facts by using unsurported facts
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
21st January 2014, 10:49 AM
So lets see some facts first.
This may provide them. it may not. it all depends on the facts that are gathered and what they mean and how they are interpreted. I would dearly like to see the unfiltered data. and I am sure Paul will be happy to show that, given teh support BAJR has given to the collection
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
21st January 2014, 11:28 AM
it would help if he asked the right questions - such as perhaps- has anybody got any data regarding the methodical survey of metal finds in topsoil/ploughzone removed from archaeological sites?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
21st January 2014, 02:06 PM
P Prentice Wrote:it would help if he asked the right questions - such as perhaps- has anybody got any data regarding the methodical survey of metal finds in topsoil/ploughzone removed from archaeological sites?
I have seen one. Oxford Arch unit did such at the Throlam villa site on the first half of the channel tunnel rail link.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
21st January 2014, 07:52 PM
P Prentice Wrote:it would help if he asked the right questions - such as perhaps- has anybody got any data regarding the methodical survey of metal finds in topsoil/ploughzone removed from archaeological sites?
Mostly hasn't been dug (one bit's being MDed by archaeologists now during stripping, as it happens), but see the Catterick Metal Detector Project in YAJ a few years back, has been massively evaluated over the years and serious geophysics etc, am sure there are other examples
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
22nd January 2014, 07:38 PM
I am sure there are many good examples > probably would be very good to collate titles ......
]: site stripping/machine watching/intial opening of trenches are critical stages that can massively pre-determine logistical and scientific parameters for an excavation project >& how/when 'ploughsoil'/topsoil/'overburden' is removed can be very significant for recovery of artefact classes (eg small metal objects, flint) that potentialy are poorly represented in excavted fills of any surviving negative features.
a rather deatiled account of topsoil/ploughsoil content + methodologys seems appropriate...even if negative//??
so a minion-gnome asks;
] - "where is the guidance on practice/methodology during 'machine watching'/site stripping?, and in 'accounting' for all that lovely topsoil?" ..?
(did i miss it some where ?)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
24th January 2014, 09:48 PM
Head over parapet....been busy here and there!
There are many detectorists who would give their time & labour for free to help suprising that some of you may find it!
The potential to both educate members of the MD community and engender better relationships is immense and IMHO be taken at every opportunity.
We (detectorists) know that we have a disproportionate amount of "wassit worf & where can I flog it" types in the hobby....they generally don`t last long.
The criminal types are a harder problem to deal with.... legislation/licencing/banning the hobby etc won`t work......criminals don`t abide by rules by default.
As far as the OP goes it is reasonably likely that Mr B will take a few numbers, adjust to suit his crusade, and then use it as a stick to beat somebody with!
Today is tomorrows yesterday.
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
27th January 2014, 04:25 PM
Quote:As far as the OP goes it is reasonably likely that Mr B will take a few numbers, adjust to suit his crusade, and then use it as a stick to beat somebody with!
No comment...
It has however opened up a rather interesting and wider debate.
and good to here from you again sir... been busy have we!
