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:

Rob <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:58:33 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (271 lines)

Steve,

It is worth remembering that the importance lays not with the find but the 
context the find is in and its relationship to the wider landscape

Rob
http://acorngenealogy.co.uk
http://www.enchantedtimes.co.uk
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve@DDL" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] A MD day at the Thornborough Henges


Hi John

I do apprecite what you are saying, but the moral duty lies in recording the
find, not in invited archaeologists along to rallies.

As you quite rightly say, the archaeological resource nbelongs to us all..
to the Common Heritage...  archaeology does not have a sole rights to this
resource any more than detctorists do.

It is worth remembering that the importance lies with the information the
find can provide and not with the physical entity itself, or so we have so
often been told in the past when being asked to record.

However as you say this is where we diverge to sonme degree, personally I
dont this this should preculde cooperation in any way.

Steve


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Carman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] A MD day at the Thornborough Henges


> Steve@DDL wrote:
> "The hobby takes a big risk in inviting FLO's and archaeologists to 
> rallies,
> it doesnt have to do this, it isnt a legal requirement or even a moral 
> one,
> it is a privalage extended to the archaeological community"
>
> This surely where the division between archaeologists and detectorists 
> resides. As an archaeologist, I would claim that there is a moral duty for 
> detectorists to involve FLOs etc. in rallies because the archaeological 
> resource belongs to everyone and not just those who like to collect bits 
> of it. The privilege therefore actually works the other way: via (e.g.) 
> the PAS detectorists are allowed access to the archaeological record in 
> return for proper recording of their finds. I find it interesting that 
> Steve does not regard metal detecting on archaeological sites to be a 
> privilege that he chooses to exercise.
> The distinction is between a privilege and a right.  Just because 
> something is allowed does not make it a right: and detecting on 
> archaeological sites is something that detectorsts such as Steve should 
> maybe begin to see as a privilege and not claim as a right, because it 
> isn't.
>
> Dr John Carman
> Birmingham University Research Fellow and Senior Lecturer in Heritage 
> Valuation
> Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity
> Arts Building
> University of Birmingham
> Edgbaston
> Birmingham B15 2TT
> Tel: +44 (0)121 414 7493
> Fax: +44 (0)121 414 3595
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: British archaeology discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Steve@DDL
> Sent: 28 September 2006 13:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] A MD day at the Thornborough Henges
>
>
> I dont see Davids views as one sided at all, neither do I see thast he has
> in any way shape or form compromised his archaeological beleifs...
>
> Beleive me, if it was felt that David was in any way ingratiating himself
> with the hobby in a baseless way he awould hold the respct that he has 
> from
> us.
>
> Davids reports is not just a kissasss document, sucking up to the hobby, 
> it
> also highlights its shortcomings and states that we still have a way to 
> go.
>
> I for one am confident enough in davids inegrity that if he had seriuous
> concerns over the conduct at the rally then he would have said so, and 
> quite
> rightly too.
>
> The hobby takes a big risk in inviting FLO's and archaeologists to 
> rallies,
> it doesnt have to do this, it isnt a legal requirement or even a moral 
> one,
> it is a privalage extended to the archaeological community, its leaves us
> wide open for inspection and criticism... rather odd when all we hear is
> that we are secretive and furtive dont you think?
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rob" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] A MD day at the Thornborough Henges
>
>
> Steve,
>
> Why do you think always that being banned from a list changes paul's view 
> on
> one thing or another.  Many moons ago now he was censured by the council 
> of
> twelve on another list along with Gary for their outspoken views, yet he
> didn't come to Britarch attacking myself or one of the other eleven.  In
> fact he made it clear that whilst he didn't agree with our views he would
> uphold the decision.
>
> That aside he has yet again raised some serious questions and shown the 
> one
> sided reporting of another.  Now I have no grip with David, far from it
> actually but there does seem to be a one sided view appearing in his 
> reports
> and I don't see you or the detecting fraternity shouting him down for this
> as you do Paul or Nigel.  WHY?
>
> Rob
> http://acorngenealogy.co.uk
> http://www.enchantedtimes.co.uk
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steve@DDL" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] A MD day at the Thornborough Henges
>
>
> 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....
>
> Sour grapes and all that springs to mind.....
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Paul Barford" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] A MD day at the Thornborough Henges
>
>
> Joanne Duijns writes on behalf of BAJR:
>> David Connolly has been kind enough to write a observation report.
>> http://www.bajr.org/Documents/Rally_Henges.pdf
>
> A self-gratulatory text with a facile, overdone ‘paper tiger’ introduction
> and facile and cloying conclusion.
>
> It merely illustrates how its author (one of the most vociferous 
> supporters
> of artefact hunting and collecting in British archaeology today) 
> understands
> the issues raised recently about artefact hunting, large "metal detecting
> rallies" at sensitive sites, the role of the PAS and this rally in
> particular. I think he has somehow totally missed the point.
>
> The very idea of a "metal detecting day" (actually three) at Thornborough 
> is
> one that we should be questioning. The site was declared a landscape of
> national importance, and yet the landowner was selling off to collectors
> access to its archaeological finds like so many pick your-own 
> strawberries.
> The area he made “available” goes right up to the edge of the scheduled 
> area
> ("oh yes, we will be detecting to within ten metres of the henges!" you
> could hear if you phoned the organizers a week before the event). In fact
> David’s map shows clearly that of the four areas he saw detected, two ran 
> up
> to the edge of the scheduled area for a substantial portion of their
> boundaries. Many responsible detectorists rightly stayed away. And yet it
> went ahead, with 300 people turning up to take away their own little 
> "piece
> of history" from this landscape for their collections and sale.
>
> There are a number of questions a truly unbiased report would raise about
> such an event and try to discuss. We see none of them here. We are instead
> offered a muddled sermon about "respect" and being nice to one another 
> with
> some self-gratulatory and autobiographical details thrown in.
>
> Most of the ‘factual’ content of the report is based on what detectorists
> told its author, which on the whole consists of the same stuff as we have
> all heard from detectorists time and time again. One “Derek” is 
> specifically
> quoted, he was the one who said artefact hunters don’t sell their finds.
> Well, Nigel has shown spectacularly how wrong this piece of whitewash is.
> When David Connolly arrived at the site he saw "stalls selling coins, some
> artefacts"… and from the speed at which it appeared on eBay, it seems a 
> fair
> assumption that this dealer (for there seems little doubt from
> "romanremains'" other eBay offerings
> http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZromanremains this is a dealer)*  was
> present at the Thornborough Rally ready to snap up the finds as they came
> out of the ground. Its a pity that in the interests of objectivity that
> David Connolly did not report the results of his conversations with him. I
> am sure he has a lot of interesting stories to tell of "detecting 
> practice".
>
> [Is this the guy? [log in to unmask] a metal detectorist 
> from
> Shadforth, Co. Durham (from http://www.ukdetectornet.co.uk/index.php?id=94
> and http://www.ncmd.co.uk/individual.htm) the 'nick' and address tally 
> with
> the eBay seller's....]
>
> David Connolly claims to have learnt and presented to us “the truth”, but 
> it
> is clear he has been listening only to one side. For example [on page 8], 
> he
> concludes that the “PAS has to learn”.. and then cites the case of an
> artefact hunting rally where the FLO was unable to attend. Perhaps before
> including this in his “review of […] Portable Antiquities Scheme methods
> [sic]”, he should have checked the circumstances surrounding this event 
> and
> not just listen to the detectorists’ side. I have, and they do not support
> the conclusion that David places on it – rather the detectorists need to
> “learn” that the FLO is not there just to service their hobby at their 
> beck
> and call to provide finds identifications for their eBay sales pitch at
> taxpayers’ expense.
>
> Paul Barford
>
>
>
> * Look at the awful Roman brooches, stripped, polished, "silvered" and 
> made
> suitable for wearing. Who wears these things? Do they have a real fur 
> stole
> to match?
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/458 - Release Date: 27/09/2006
>



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/458 - Release Date: 27/09/2006

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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