JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  February 2005

BRITARCH February 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: A detectorist vision of the twenty-first century ?

From:

rob <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:00:05 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (75 lines)

Andy,

I suggested much the same last night on the UKDN and received a reply
stating that they do have nouse and that MD's cant detect lower than 12" so
don't go under the plough soil.  I replied with the fact that plough shears
are very rarely greater than 9" and these are only used every 3 or 4 years
( info from a farmer and a metal detectorist) so even if they detect on land
recently ploughed with the 9" shears and they detect top 12" then they are
if my logic isn't lost 3" under the plough soil.  I then went further and
introduced them to some hard facts that in one field in Doncaster is a hole
3 feet by 2 feet by 3 feet deep dug out by a MD user on the hunt for what
turned out to be nothing than a lump of iron.  Ok this field has over the
years been turned over by ceramics collectors as 1/3 of the field seems to
be covered in Victorian pottery.  ( I am trying to find out the reason for
this) and that no archaeological context really survives but I think it
illustrated my point.

I finished by suggesting that the only way for this animosity to move
forward is for Archaeologists and Metal Detectorists to start having
reasoned discussion and not allowing the 2 or 3 that post here to continue
to expose the two fraternities to the constant them and us syndrome as many
archaeologists now accept that there is a place for MD's.  I made mention of
a certain person's desire to flame Paul at every opportunity.

As for DEFRA and the Countryside stewardship scheme, it would seem that the
CSS is no longer accepting new applications and in 9 years time will be gone
altogether however a new scheme is being brought in but it would seem that
no one not even DEFRA employee's can figure out the wording.  The metal
Detectorists along with others who regularly post here have been lobbying
their MP's to gain clarification of this and to try and stop a complete ban
on MD's which is what they believe is occurring.

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Norfolk" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: A detectorist vision of the twenty-first century ?


> I hate to feed the trolls we have on this list, but here are my thoughts
> on the MD situation.
>
> I'm not an archaeologist, or a metal detectorist, but it is only needs
> the application of a little common sense to realise that digging out
> only the metal artefacts, with little or no recording of any
> stratigraphy, from sites which may not be well recorded, will have a bad
> effect on the archaeological record. The lumps of metal may be pretty
> and have intrinsic worth. In the case of coins, for example, they may
> help with the development of typologies. However objects with no known
> context are vastly less interesting and useful than those from properly
> recorded locations - which should include the presence of non-metallic
> objects and their spatial relationships.
>
> Now I do appreciate that whatever is in the ploughed soil of a field has
> no stratigraphy, however useful information can be obtained plotting
> scatters of metals objects in a ploughed field. It has also been made
> obvious by messages on Britarch that MDs dig through the plough soil
> into undisturbed ground below.
>
> Metal detecting can of course be helpful as part of a properly carried
> out archaeological investigation of a site. It can be helpful in the
> right circumstances. It can be extremely destructive in others. It is
> also quite clear that some metal detectorists do it to make money. If
> this was not the case there would not be so many artefacts for sale on
> Ebay. Some metal detectorists are behaving in a very selfish way which
> is damaging the reputation of all the rest and their hobby as a whole.
> Metal detectorists have the chance to deal with this themselves - at the
> moment. I think that if they don't, sooner or later there will be
> legislation to try and prevent what could be described as wholesale
> looting of the countryside.
>
> Andy N

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager