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  October 2010

BRITARCH October 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Further support for extension of Treasure Act

From:

peter aherne <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:56:41 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (179 lines)

I've been a bit reluctant to join this debate as it is a perennial problem within archaeology, however, Mike Heyworth makes a very good point in that we should make a "clear distinction" between the responsible MD and the 'nighthawk'.  Perhaps some registration procedure could be put in place along the lines of the IfA's Registered Organisations for Commercial Archaeology units.  What do you think?
Pete Aherne. 
PG Student of Medieval Archaeology,
University of York. 
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:14:12 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Further support for extension of Treasure Act
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> Many thanks for clarifying the distinction Mike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Mike Heyworth <[log in to unmask]
> > wrote:
> 
> >
> > Just following on from Peter's comments can I just make a suggestion
> > that we make a clear distinction in our discussions between 'responsible
> > detectorists' who follow the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal
> > Detecting in England and Wales (who work with the PAS, report all their
> > finds and often have a good understanding of issues relating to context)
> > and those who do not follow the Code, either from choice or because they
> > are not aware of these issues. And then of course there are heritage
> > criminals ('nighthawks').
> >
> > As archaeologists we should work closely with responsible detectorists
> > who make a significant contribution to our understanding of the past -
> > as can be seen from the numerous research projects using PAS data. And
> > we all (archaeologists and responsible detectorists) need to persuade
> > more detectorists to follow the Code of Practice.
> >
> > The metal detector is a valuable archaeological tool when it is used to
> > advance knowledge.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: British archaeology discussion list
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Twinn
> > Sent: 15 October 2010 9:31 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Further support for extension of Treasure Act
> >
> > Guy's without wanting to muddy the waters here, I have to disagree with
> > some
> > of your thoughts. I have been a detectorist for 30 years and in that
> > time I
> > have always sought to do right by what I find, more-so since the advent
> > of
> > the PAS in my region in 2003 when it was rolled out nationally.
> >
> > Firstly the majority of detectorist would always seek to detect on
> > ploughed
> > fields, the reason for this is obvious, but mainly because the process
> > does
> > bring finds closer to the surface enabling them to be detected and of
> > course
> > they're easier to dig. Now this highlights a point which you're
> > obviously
> > not aware of, that many detectorist (after good education from our
> > fabulous
> > FLO's) will be looking for other material like pottery etc to give finds
> > some possible context within a wider site or landscape. Remember finds
> > don't
> > jump hedges, so they do have some sort of landscape context even if they
> > have moved a little with the plough. This includes the discovery of many
> > a
> > stone age sites due to the huge interest that people like myself and
> > others
> > have pushed for with detectorist. If you view the PAS statistics you'll
> > see
> > the majority who record with them do so to a 10 figure national grid
> > reference which unless you have a total station you can't better. This
> > has
> > given more information to the historic record than you could shake a
> > stick
> > at.
> >
> > Secondly, I have worked with our archaeology department on our research
> > dig
> > looking for a double mynster at Berkeley and to be honest, if I weren't
> > there with my detector the vast majority of small metal finds would not
> > have
> > been found. Not because the students are useless, but because in this
> > country we don't sieve for finds! An Anglo Saxon sceat is barely 10mm
> > across
> > with a usual grey patination so how on earth is a digger supposed to see
> > that in the earth that get's the mechanical digger, mattock or trowel
> > treatment?
> > So even with the best recorded sites (and Berkeley is excellent), and
> > the
> > fact that the students do find artefacts, you'll still miss items that
> > then
> > become un-stratified when recorded. At Berkeley I actually manage the
> > spoil
> > heap to the point I have at least a context number for the finds,
> > something
> > that works well, but the majority of finds do not get recorded in situ.
> > I
> > know that this is not the case on many sites, and that's even if they
> > bother
> > to use a detectorist! I find upward of 95% of all metal finds at our
> > excavation because Prof. Mark Horton and Dr Stuart Prior had the
> > foresight
> > to see that this is another geophysical tool that should be a part of
> > every
> > archaeological department or unit that digs in this country......it has
> > certainly paid off. I could write a list of hundreds of finds including
> > Anglo Saxon coins and artefacts' from this research dig that would make
> > many
> > of you wonder what you're either missing or may have missed.
> >
> > So before we go too far, be careful what you think detectorist may or
> > may
> > not be doing. I have said I fully support the changes to the Treasure
> > Act
> > and many detectorist do feel the same. The process of what happens to
> > finds
> > is another issue, but suffice to say it's going to be very hard to bolt
> > the
> > proverbial stable door after all this time, metal detecting has been
> > going
> > now since the 1960's, the market for artefacts and coins for centuries.
> > There is a larger and larger group within detecting that do donate their
> > finds to museums at no cost like myself, so be careful with the big
> > black
> > tar-brush please :-)
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: British archaeology discussion list
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Richard Tyndall
> > Sent: 14 October 2010 21:00
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Further support for extension of Treasure Act
> >
> > This would be my complaint as well,
> >
> > as any archaeologist, amateur or professional knows, context is
> > everything.
> > With one honourable exception I have never known of a metal detectorist
> > who
> > spent the time to properly clean up, record and draw or photograph the
> > sections the hole from which he had removed the piece of metal.
> > Certainly I
> > don't see many cases of metal detectorists assigning context numbers and
> > attempting to stratify the finds. And yet without these basic techniques
> > many finds are practically worthless (from an archaeological point of
> > view)
> > or at least much diminished in value.
> >
> > It is true that many finds are from plough soil where context and
> > stratification may not be applicable but I also know that many of the
> > most
> > famous finds, not to mention the myriad smaller, less well known finds
> > that
> > supposedly came from plough soil were in fact from sub soil or even
> > lower
> > and so could have been properly contexted and recorded. That they were
> > not
> > means that great damage has been done to the archaeological record.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
 		 	   		  

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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