I think we are being pedantic now. Obviously, when I say 'promoting detecting' I mean responsible detecting.
Should we promote the growth of numbers of brand-new-to-the-hobby RESPONSIBLE detectorists? My personal (not necessarily the PAS's) view is yes, but only as one field survey technique among many. Surely you would not have a problem with promoting brand-new-to-archaeology fieldwalkers, geophysical surveyors, excavators (the latter very destructive if done irresponsibly). This continual seperation of metal detecting as an entity completely unrelated to archaeology is not good (albeit some detectorists are just as guilty of this). It is a field survey technique, one amongst a range of methods we can deploy. So as long as it is promoted within a wider context of appropriate methodologies for understanding past landscapes and societies, what is the problem?
From: British archaeology discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Nigel Swift
Sent: 17 July 2006 11:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] PAS strays from its remit ( was Bill Wyman's
light metal )
Incidentally Andrew, you still haven't answered your own question, should we
promote metal detecting, and have instead amended it to should we promote
responsible metal detecting.
Everyone agrees to the latter if its seen as a conversion process of
existing detectorists. But of central significance to this thread is -
should we promote the growth of numbers of brand-new-to-the- hobby
RESPONSIBLE detectorists. That seems to be the only possible aim of PAS's detecting
game for children (albeit the mechanics of ensuring they're responsible are
mighty obscure). It would be good to know whether you or PAS thinks that would
be beneficial to society and archaeology but I somehow doubt we shall hear.
"I seemed to have lost the section that has that in it.... or did you just
make that up to suit your view...? "
is not going to prompt the desired reponse. How transparent and undignified.