Print

Print


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