Gary Brun writes:
> Seriously... do you think the HER & PAS will record
> every roman nail and every bit of iron dross they find?<
HERs will maintain as part of their archives the information, yes. If PAS
does not do it too when the information is passed to them, so that it can
then be passed on to the relevant HER, then as a middleman they are letting
the responsibly fully recording tekkies down. Better to deal direct with the
HERs then, so this information is properly curated.
> At least records are kept<
Are they? I think the scale of that was what was in dispute. They really are
no good to man nor beast until they are deposited in a proper archive.
> if some took time too see how much information is
> being lost due to erosion and chemicals <
if some took time to look more closely at what is being claimed and what the
evidence is actually for it... For example compare Rod Blunts carefully
selected 'shock-horror' examples with the full assemblage published by David
Connolly from the 2007 "Water Newton" rally.
Have a good look at the photos of each of the objects found. How many look
like the ones Rod Blunt selected? What percentage? Answers on a postcard
please. The farm where this rally took place lies right in the middle of one
of the most intensively farmed areas of the UK, replete with artificial
fertilisers and heavily mechanised. The state of the finds does NOT support
the "let's hoik it all out now" model preferred by the pro-collecting lobby.
The vast majority of the range of 300 000 metal finds in the PAS database
(and the UKDF one) are equally devoid of the sort of features Blunt (2005)
tries to claim are endemic. Not to mention eBay. This really is clutching at
> Yet... it seems that many within the archaeological
> community refuse to see this because we are metal
[playing the "elitism" card and the "victimisation" one].
No the problem is that both of these are palpably false arguments, not
because you "are" metal detectorists, but because when you look beyond the
superficiality and spin, there are grounds for believing that the actual
effects of the hobby on the archaeological record are not at all what its
supporters claim they are.