Catherine Stallybrass <[log in to unmask]> wrote (in <1f0.d96980e.2c4d
[log in to unmask]>) about 'Detectorists : News travels fast', on Mon, 21 Jul
>I am rather concerned at the line that seems to have been taken by a
>number of contributers to this thread, that the truth about the
>archaeological record should be falsified for security's sake. Earlier
>the falsification of maps and the suppression of location in publication
>seemed to be being advocated.
There IS a fine line to be drawn between partial disclosure, contrary to
scientific frankness, and full disclosure that puts the site at risk of
vandals. It seems to me that full disclosure is appropriate for
publications aimed at the profession, and, of course, for museum records
and the like, but for 'popular' publication, including web sites,
reticence is justified. Serious students can always contact the author
for more information.
> I do find myself wondering whose
>archaeological heritage we are talking about. If, as archaeologists, we
>do not inform the public of our findings, are we so different from the
>detectorists who remove artefacts from their contexts and keep them in
Yes. There is a very significant difference between reticence and theft.
Withheld information can be disclosed at any subsequent time to persons
of proven good intent, but you won't get looted artefacts back unless
you buy them.
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!