Gary Brun explains:
> If you read through the posts on PAS you will find that Mr
> Barford and Mr Swift and their constant harassment of PAS and recording
> detecorists brought about UKDFD... but they will try to deny that.
"Brought about UKDFD"? So the UKDFD is not "inspired by the PAS" as was
suggested earlier this evening, but rather brought about by the PAS not
banning Mr Barford and Mr Swift from asking the few dozen artefact hunters
on the Forum awkward questions they did not want asked?
So, let us get this right Gary; you mean Nigel and I allegedly "harrassed
the PAS", and as faithful supporters of the Scheme to help them in their
oppression you set up a splinter pretend "recording system" to draw off our
criticism? And what was it we were allegedly "harrassing" "recording
detecorists" to do? Stop recording with the PAS and go and join some other
scheme? Well, as you say, if the archaeologists here can be bothered to read
through the posts on the defunct Forum, I think they will see quite clearly
where the problem lay, and what it was that Nigel and I were writing about.
> I see a professional jealousy within the ranks of some of the britarchers
> and the fight for money.
Really? That seems a very shallow interpretation of all the concerns that
have been expressed. It would be a bit pointless, would it not, for me to
fight for the PAS' money...
> I really believe that Roger Bland and his staff have worked hard ....<
Yes I really believe that too.
> ....and accomplished so much within the PAS only to be undermined by the
> predictable reactions from the few.<
Well, here we differ. I think that their achievement should be measured by
the effect they are having on the overall problem, which includes the scale
of the effects of unreported collecting activities on the archaeological
resource. And surprise surprise that is precisely the figure that is (still)
missing from the equation.
In any case, if the PAS' achievements were such a deep and permanent "change
in attitudes" among detectorists, then the voices of "a few" would hardly be
likely to undermine it, would they? The very fact that you admit that a few
simple questions can threaten so much suggests that in reality you are only
too well aware of the shallowness of the "commitment" of detectorists to the
PAS way of doing things and their understanding of what it is all about and
for. In other words, you are simply contradicting yourself.
> I am very glad that britarch does not represent the true feelings of the
> archaeological community and its bigoted stance regarding detecting and
> role the detectorist does play in archaeology.
I am not terribly clear what you wanted to say about the (British?)
archaeological community and its alleged bigotry. The last bit though is
understandable, its going to be the PAS' next conference. But then, let us
hope that the conference will also ask, "how many, out of how many, artefact
hunters actively play a role in [real] archaeology"? However you count it,
its not a particularly high proportion of them. So let's bring the ones that
do NOT into the equation. Like the ones that dont report their finds to PAS
but instead send scans of a few goodies to their tekkie mates in the UKDFD,
the thing you tried to promote throough the PAS website. .