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  July 2006

BRITARCH July 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: PAS strays from its remit ( was Bill Wyman's light metal )

From:

"Steve@DDL" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:57:36 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (223 lines)

Andrew wrote:

"I agree the metal detecting hobby as a whole still has a way to go on its 
journey towards mainstream archaeology, but it is making progress, and it 
needs help on this journey, not hostility. "

Andrew would you mind expleining this further please, because I am not quite 
sure what you are implying here.

Steve



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Richardson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] PAS strays from its remit ( was Bill Wyman's light 
metal )


This really is my last go at this thread, promise!

Paul,

You make some good points, as you usually do, and please don't think
that those of us who work at the sharp end of the PAS do not think about
the sort of issues you raise, because we do.  I don't pretend the PAS is
perfect (show me the organisation that is) and neither would I want to
deny you the right to criticise and examine what we, a publically funded
body, do.  But we are trying our best with the resources available to
us.

Regarding the Anglo-Saxon brooches, I'm sorry that they are 'showy
ethnically-labelable small find type artefacts'.  My academic background
happens to be the early Anglo-Saxon period (see my BAR on the
Anglo-Saxon cemeteries of Kent) and these brooches seem to me to offer
some new insights (and numbers count in this instance, hence the
contribution of detectorists vs. 19th century ploughmen) which I hope to
bring out in a paper which I would hope to publish next year.  Why not
wait and read it, then judge?

Regarding the membership of Kent clubs, we can quibble about the
figures, I use 'about 400' as a rough figure, and its hard to get a
completely accurate one as some people are members of more than one
club.  Certainly many people don't record finds with me.  I have a
feeling though that in many cases its because they honestly haven't
found anything worth recording.  Some people just aren't on the right
bits of landscape, some just aren't lucky, and could improve their
detecting techniques!  Clearly some people are choosing not to record,
but to be honest I think with most people (80% at a rough estimate) they
would record anything I asked them to, but lack of time on my part
prevents me from going around everyone saying "I want to see everything
now".  We are making progress, and that is what is important.  Give me a
permanent assistant or a second Kent FLO and we'll make yet more
progress, I promise.  We do have volunteers helping with the recording
in most clubs by the way, so the detectorists themselves are taking some
responsibility for this.

Paul, there is no problem debating any of this.  I agree the metal
detecting hobby as a whole still has a way to go on its journey towards
mainstream archaeology, but it is making progress, and it needs help on
this journey, not hostility.  Also I agree we have yet to really get to
grips with what these artefacts have to tell us about past societies,
but again, this is a work in progress; all help will be gratefully
received!

That really is me done on this debate.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: British archaeology discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Barford
Sent: 17 July 2006 14:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] PAS strays from its remit ( was Bill Wyman's
light metal )

Andrew Richardson  writes:
> If you have issues with the PAS why not talk to some
> FLO's   ...<
well, one problem is that FLOs are not so keen to discuss these issues
in a purely archaeological context with all of their archaeological
colleagues.
The FLOs very obviously kept out of general discussions on the PAS
Forum, they habitually avoid this one too. In my experience when I have
addressed a request for information or query to an FLO, in many cases
the question is referred to head office in London where the answer is
agreed before I get it. I've not worked out whether that is individual
FLO paranoia, or corporate paranoia, but it hardly suggests I'm getting
the FLO's own spontaneous take on things. One or two FLOs (no names)
have given me the impression that they'd really rather not talk about
some of the issues I raise with them, which rather hinders gathering
information....

So its nice that you are game to talk to us. Thanks.

> it will help you get a clearer picture of what is actaully happening
> than any amount of official statistics
> ever will.   <
Ahem, well that's my "song", that the PAS statistics are fluff. I dont
expect you meant to say that  !!

The "PAStexplorers" website which we were discussing is an important
enough component of PAS outreach in one of its key areas ("education")
to get launched personally by Estelle Morris. It has potential wide
impact. So I dont see why you are uncomfortable that we comment on it.
Is there ANY reason why it should not be better as archaeological
outreach than it is? Is there ANY real reason why this was not
brainstormed a bit more to bring out these problems before it was
launched? Is there any REAL reason why all the time we are asked to be
satisfied with "better than nothing" from archaeology's "biggest
outreach"?

But the problem that has been highlighted is not just a feature of this
website, what we see on the "PAStexplorers" webpage is just a symptom of
the wider problem of the PAS' attitudes to artefact hunting, or rather
to be more accurate the attitude it projects.

And what is so wrong with us as archaeologists discussing that or even
questioning that?

Nobody whatsoever of course is questioning whether metal detectors are
useful tools, or whether responsible detecting incorporated in a wider
structured approach as "Our Portable Past" lays down, can be useful. The
problem is that the majority of people using this tool have no intention
of doing it by the book, but "self-determining" the way they are going
to exploit the common heritage for their own personal use.

> Should we promote metal detecting? <
well, I too would welcome a PAS answer, your own or consulted with head
office, on that one !! But the point being made was that to all intents
and purposes (and on our behalf) you already do. Where in the whole of
the material produced by the PAS is the other side of the argument
presented?
Have a good look and tell us where on the PAS website or literature the
confused member of public (the man in the street) having heard that some
of those nasty archies dont like "metal detecting" and have problems
with the antiquities market, might find out why. Because without that,
it seems to me that there are indeed grounds for saying that the general
tenor of the PAS website is that it promotes artefact hunting and
personal collection in general.

> In this instance, metal detected finds are opening a new window on
> early Anglo-Saxon material culture, one which traditional
> archaeological methods had failed to open.
I really dont see what PAS brooches have to offer that ploughman's finds
of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries dont - except there are
now more of them perhaps?  I note the two main PAS flagship projects,
your Kentish brooches and VASLE are geared towards showy
ethnically-labelable small find type artefacts. Why? Forgive me but
until you publish the results for us to assess, it seems to me that this
type of fibulology is precisely the "traditional" artefactological
archaeology which most of us moved on from decades ago, and its
difficult for me to get awfully excited about "more" cruciform
brooches.....

Numismatists can rewrite history using coins bought on e-bay, they dont
even need a context of finding, but that is no argument that eBay is a
good thing for archaeology. Its good for collectors, but digging all
this stuff out of sites does not do them too much good... talk to your
colleagues in Bulgaria and the Balkans about that.

>  As I said, in Kent I have yet to encounter a detectorist (and I visit

> all the clubs in Kent, combined membership
> 400+) who opposes the CoP.  A completely different
> picture to the one you paint Nigel.
well, that's funny, the last PAS Annual Report tells us there are only
385 metal detecting club members in Kent (page 100, table 7b) but in the
same period only 102 of them were reporting finds to the PAS (page 100
table 7a).
So three quarters of the metal detector users in this alleged
archaeo-detecting Nirvanaland were in fact not coming forward with finds
as the CoP presupposes. Or is this another of those "official
statistics" which we will now be told mean nothing?

> But I would question why metal detecting, alone amongst the various
> sub-disciplines of archaeology, should be singled out for not being
> promoted, even when responsibly done?
Pardon? Artefact hunting with metal detectors is a "sub-discipline of
archaeology"? No, I dont think it is, its something quite different. It
feeds on archaeology, the finds it throws up can be used by archaeology,
but personal artefact collecting is not in itself archaeology. Surely no
more than stamp collecting is social anthropology. What you call "metal
detecting" (why?) is just the first stage of the whole activity. The
point of it is not merely the "detecting" of the artefact, but what the
"detecting" is for and that is to supply collectables for personal
collection and sale. So could I rephrase that question Andrew, do you
promote responsible collecting of and dealing in of archaeological
artefacts? And do you extend that to all artefacts, whether from the UK
or Iraq, the Balkans, Italy, Egypt, Greece or totally unprovenanced?
Where and how would you have us draw the line?

> So as long as it is promoted within a wider context of appropriate
> methodologies for understanding past landscapes and societies, what is

> the problem?
But it (artefact hunting/metal detecting) is not, not by the PAS anyway.
Your boss two weeks ago wrote in Rescue News that he's happy that 40% of
metal detecting artefact hunters are showing the PAS their finds. The
PAS does _nothing_  beyond making a record of lots and lots of
detector-made finds to promote metal detector use "within a wider
context of appropriate methodologies for understanding past landscapes
and societies" (OK, show us what it does). I agree with you that as
archaeological outreach, that is what it SHOULD have been doing for the
past eight years.... but instead we get the naked artefactology of the
database. On the website are guides on Roman coins (typological series
based on emperors) and medieval coins (ditto only kings) and little
else. As for how to structure metal detector use to study landscapes...
well, you'd have to go to Corinne Mills' website for that, not the PAS
one. Where is there the hint of the merest mention on the PAS website
that finds are used to understand societies - or more to the point how?
That was precisely the point I made about the "PAStexplorers"
stuff, it shows the finds you can find, says what they are, but does not
explain how you go from that to the community which produced, used and
discarded them - in other words how to use the "detectorists"
collectables as archaeological evidence. And surely that is what it
should all be about.
Its part of PAS aim number two.

Paul Barford

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

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