Might I reiterate that my post 'Paul Barford's vision of the
twenty-first century?' did on no way suggest that there was not an
archaeological point to the discussion on metal detecting, or that list
members were not interested. But with the greatest respect, the
discussions on the list were not moving us on (I personally doubt that
Estelle Morris subscribes to the list). At no point did I suggest that
there should be no more mention of MDs on Britarch, or that anyone
unsubscribes from the list. I would just like to see things move beyond
the continuous circles in which they reside. As to the 'isolated' nature
of the Britarch-Debates list. What do think is going on here? Without
causing offence to my many colleagues and friends subscribing to
Britarch, it is ONLY a discussion list, it will not change the world. It
is not a question of letting the subject go, it is now a question of
taking it further. Another years worth of debate on Britarch will not
lead to a DCMS review, full and proper ratification of Valetta, or a
change in the law.
I fear that the analogy with the appeasement of the Nazis (Paul Barford
Sent: 09 February 2005 11:35) is an unfortunate one. But if those
opposed to Nazism in the 1930s had simply sounded off on an internet
discussion list then it would not have had any effect anyway.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Barford [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 11 February 2005 10:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Odp: Response and taking responsibility - Katy's aye
> > rather than a subscription to Britarch-debates to perhaps get
> > something moving).
> No, the idea of the Britarch debating dungeon seems to be to
> keep any further attempts at discussion with the detecting
> trolls OFF Mainstream Britarch. This is to stop it annoying
> those who do not see any connection between the issues
> surrounding current policies on detecting and "real"
> archaeology (and weighty comments on Captain James T. Kirk
> and Telegraph crosswords). And good riddance, let them
> misbehave themselves over there instead of here to their
> heart's content without any risk of censure.
> I am not planning on taking part in any isolated "debate on
> the detecting of archaeologcal artefacts" (quote) over there
> because it seems to me that this is NOT at all what these
> discussions were about. I am more interested in the
> archaeological and long-term conservation implications of
> this phenomenon. I was under the impression that THIS was
> what we (some of us) were trying to address here - address
> against all the odds it seems. Given past experiences, the
> notion of entering such an isolated forum where there is not
> even the nominal moderation there is here does not appeal to
> me either. There are other fora for discussing "detecting
> archaeological artefacts" (like UKDN and UKRally and indeed PASForum).
> I think it is a pity that precisely at this moment when the
> whole issue is taking on an entirely new perspective with the
> leaking (?) of information from DEFRA about the new schemes
> that the CBA has decided to make this an issue that should no
> longer be discussed on Mainline Britarch as part of the
> overall scheme of British archaeology. But far be it for me
> to suggest this is an issue that might conceivably interest
> more than ten members of Britarch.
> Paul Barford