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  September 2006

BRITARCH September 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: A MD day at the Thornborough Henges

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:52:18 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (93 lines)

Most Detectorists... exaggerating agian Paul... one or two visit the BAJR 
forum in an attempt to help build bridges.

Having said that I do not intend to respond to you or Nigel again on this 
matter as you are both pure poison, your only interest is to block any and 
all attemps at constructive dialogue.

How your peers tolerate you I have no idea.

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Barford" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] A MD day at the Thornborough Henges


Steve Burch adds helpfully:
> And of course this tirade has nothing to do with the fact that you
> have recently been banned from the BAJR Forum does it Paul....

Well, actually I would have preferred to discuss it over on the BAJR Forum
with its author, but in order to prevent that, its author has indeed blocked
my account over there on his own pro-artefact hunting Forum the day before
he posted his report:
http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=914&whichpage=3
David's pretext for his actions and previous repliess to comments about
artefact hunting are there for all to see. I have nothing to hide.

So, since you've drawn our attention to that thread, perhaps we can ask some
Britarchers' opinions now most of the detectorists have migrated over to
BAJR.

This whole ‘artefact hunters rescue finds from plough damage’ thread runs
through David Connolly’s “report”.  Impressed by the apparent bad state of
the ‘Langdale’ axe found at Thornborough, David writes about modern
agricultural activity:
> “in the next decade the axe would cease to exist as an artefact - it
> would be crushed rolled, ploughed, rolled, crushed rolled etc etc until
> the axe was now a series of unrecognisable pebbles which would
> have no use at all to anyone”.
His argument being “better out than in” – ie carte blanche for artefact
hunting on ploughed archaeological sites.

[This is of course similar to the argument being used by Tarmac’s
archaeologist to justify quarrying after full rescue excavation of the
archaeology threatened by the plough rather than an ineffective
'preservation in situ'].

I dont think any of us are in any doubt that sites and finds are damaged by
the plough. The argument that this is happening everywhere at an increased
pace however cannot be used as an argument for increasing the pace at which
we encourage metal artefacts to be taken by artefact hunters and collectors
from the archaeological resource under the pretence that by scattering them
in personal collections they are “rescuing” them. As Renfrew has remarked
the “giving them a good home” argument applies to stray dogs but not
archaeological evidence.

I questioned David Connolly’s interpretation with regard what was happening
at Thornbourough
http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=914&whichpage=1 .

I did this on the basis of the photo of the object on UKRally which does not
match his verbal description of the degree of damage. I also found a picture
of a gold coin from the same rally posted there which shows no sign of the
high degree of recent plough battering which David alleges on the
Thornborough finds as a whole, leading to him formulating his conclusions.

The eBay photos of both sides of the axe show even more clearly (to my mind)
that almost all the flake scars on that object have the appearance of
patinated old ones and may have occurred before the object was finally
buried damage (one on the butt has a rounded edge and seems to be from the
shaping of the blank). One flake and one transverse scar seem to be newer,
but hardly basis for the interpretation that the object would shortly become
a “pebble” – still less that this will happen within a decade as David
asserts elsewhere in the BAJR thread, but refused to discuss further there,
locking the thread.

In reply to my comments on BAJR that not all the information was necessarily
recorded in the 2-3 minutes the object was in the hands of the PAS before it
vanished into artefact-oblivion, David Connolly wrote (specifically of this
axe):
> “As to the find wandering off.. it has been recorded nd the PAS know
> exactly where it is.... details have been sent to All parties in the area
> and if anyone wants to take it further they can”.
Well, only if they can trace the person who now buys it on eBay, just three
days after the rally. Go on David, put in a bid and save it for the nation
in case in those 2-3 minutes the PAS did not record everything the future
investigator will need to know.

Paul Barford

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
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