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: : More MD? finds on ebay

From:

Dave Tooke <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:48:14 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

Gary

Perhaps you can tell me what the objectives of the Metal Detectorist
fraternity are? And if there is actually any such fraternity (or sorority -
is there such a thing as a siblingity?). Why do they walk around muddy
fields with an electronic broom? What is it that the majority of them get
out of their hobby?

This is NOT an attempt at sarcasm, it is a genuine query.

I assume that many of them are fascinated by old artefacts and enjoy
learning about the societies that produced them. I also understand the
thrill of discovery.

But why would a person with a strong interest in learning about the past do
things which prevent further discoveries being made, which is what the
effect of the isolated extaction of metal artefacts does.

By discoveries, I do not mean simply other artefacts, in isolation, but the
discovery which arises when the relationship between artefacts is clear,
which was laid beside which, or below which. Is the metal bit you dig out of
a hole actually in a different coloured soil - perhaps at the bottom of a
pit or a post hole? What relationship did the metal object have to the stone
object which your machine did not detect and which still lays undiscovered?
It is the relationships and associations of the different artefacts within
the different soil strata which gives the clues to what was actually
happening in the past. The individual object itself, taken in isolation, is
virtually valueless except for typological studies - which though of great
use in themsleves can only tell a small part of the story.

So why, why do those who are interested in the past act in ways which
prevent us learning more about it?

I can only assume that they do not see things that way, and would be
grateful if you could express the arguement from the other side.

Dave Tooke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Brun" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 6:32 PM
Subject: SV: : More MD? finds on ebay


> Paul Barford wrote:
>
> "This is an archaeology discussion list for among other things "general
> discussion of issues relating to archaeology in the United Kingdom". The
> points I and others have been raising cover a number of aspects of the way
> artefact-collection interacts with the archaeological record and its
> long-term protection as well as with the archaeological world. I see no
> reason whatsoever for banning detectorists from such discussions here, but
> ask that they actually realise that here it is indeed the ARCHAEOLOGICAL
and
> conservation aspects of detecting which are likely to be the main ones
> discussed".
>
> Glad to see that a guy who swings the dreaded metal detector is welcome on
> this discussion list. :-)
> I for one joined to try and get to understand the differences between both
> parties and also to understand a little more about archaeology.   But on
> this discussion forum their is a lot of sarcasm and if we are honest
> personal attacks against both parties. It seems to be very one sided and
> that does not lead to healthy debate.
>
> I do understand the archaeologists point of view and I do think that both
> Archaeologists and Metal Detectorists need to get their house in order.
> When it comes to PAS...  This is a step in the right direction even if you
> think the funding is not correctly spent.  Its defiantly better than
nothing
> being done at all.  I could trawl the internet and come up with many
horror
> stories from archaeological digs etc...  But where does that get us.  Just
> straight back to the basic pointless "tit for tat" arguments.
>
> Instead of focusing on the negatives all of the time... What are the
> positives of the PAS scheme.. Can you see any???
> Have PAS not achieved more in recent years for the benefits of Archaeology
> or is it better to go back to way things where before... Where there was
> nothing recorded?
>
> England is a free country and a democracy.  Metal detecting is allowed and
> is the right for every citizen...  But you must educate the new comers
into
> the hobby... Because at the moment you cant get rid of them, as you say in
a
> previous post you estimated nearly over 10,000, and this number will
> continue to grow. So sarcastic comments or blinkered outlook will not help
> the situation.
>
>
> Gary Brun
>

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