Paul Barford <[log in to unmask]> wrote (in <009a01c34bd2$a02069c0$040
a63d9@Standard>) about 'in praise of metal detecting: was (no subject)
longish', on Wed, 16 Jul 2003:
>There is no lack of people with such an open mind and friendly approach
>to the metal detectorists in British archaeology (and on this list) but
>there are also those of us who think that there are issues which need to
>be addressed and perhaps we should discuss in more detail. It is to
>those with the "open minds" that these comments are in part addressed.
There ARE issued to be addressed, but a discussion here won't achieve
anything useful, I think. We don't want a reiteration of polarized
opinions, we want paths to a solution. It seems clear to me that
'demonizing' MDs indiscriminately will never lead to a solution. At the
same time, there are some MDs who won't be stopped without legal
sanctions. So I think a three-pronged approach is necessary:
1. Encourage responsible MDs to get closer to archaeologists, perhaps by
joining local groups. They need to be offered something; controlled
access to a site that they can't get at 'informally' would help.
2. Encourage those MDs to rope in other MDs, whose activities are
irresponsible through ignorance.
3. Lobby for legal sanctions. If the central government has bigger fish
to fry, try proposing to local authorities and the Local Government
Association that they explore the power of by-laws in this context. If
they can deal with dog-fouling and car parking with by-laws, I would
think that they could at least do something about what is, in effect, a
form of theft.
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!