UK DETECTOR NET Forum

Following a post by Badger here, viewtopic.php?p=168482#168482 we are now running our own to see the result. I don't think I need to add the last one of Badger's otherwise we wouldn't all be here.

Of those members that voted 'Yes - but only within guidelnes' I would be interested to know how they perceive these guidelines, have you voted for yes our guidelines or yes any Archaeological guidelines or yes guidelines agreed by the two parties ??

I think guidelines that function as an active framework for collaboration. I think saying YES! without regard for autonomous practise is a bit scary in all honesty. I want to preserve my own individual right to act as I think fit, but need an active framework within which I can pitch contributions.

Guidelines would be Ok as long as they are not all Archaeological guidelines.
I would like to see scheduled sites, that are ploughed, made available to detect with the landowners permission, unless they are allocated a time scale for an archaeological dig.
Regards,
Dino

Yes - according to guidelines agreed between all parties

I totally agree that the guidelines must come from yourselves and acceptable all round (instead of imposed by an outside (archaeological) body)

These very guidelines are currently being discussed on the PAS site, not impossed from outside but are a colaboration between all concerned parties, a cooperation, just as it should be.

Yes - as the PAS grows more detectorists are getting involved with archaeologists, and it does seem to be working. I've worked on several projects with detectorists in Sussex and elsewhere and I believe that the metal detector, with a skilled operator is an invaluable tool on any archaeological site/detector survey.

Welcome to the Forum, Liz - don't forget to cast your vote! :lol:

as vice chairman of my local club we work with archies and todate we get along very well[/quote]

Guidelines must be acceptable to both sides before implementation and ther must be Compromise on both sides.

Lexxy

i feel torn between two votes, i am definately in favour of the two disciplines working in conjunction as together we could acheive better results than singularly. but i would require some sort of discourse about how best to meet each others needs and expectations. failure to consider this importaint fact i feel it would be a recipe for disaster.
i believe these two voting catagories should in effect be one as i feel the definately vote is to encompassing.

As I have posted before, here in E Kent we have no problem with the Achies, in fact I would say that we have a better relationship with them than any other part of the country. As our FLO Dr Andrew Richardson and our NCMD officer David Barwell go out of there way to encourage this.

Dino - UK wrote: I would like to see scheduled sites, that are ploughed, made available to detect with the landowners permission, unless they are allocated a time scale for an archaeological dig.

This kind of remark illustrates the sort of problem that will arise in agreeing any guidelines (and since I have seen the same kind of remark on this topic several times in the past few weeks this is not a criticism of an individual).
First of all, we'd have to work out (in this case) why sites are scheduled - what scheduling is 'for' (and its not really just to earmark sites for future excavation !). You would have to understand why one site is scheduled (despite already being under plough) and others are not.

You would also have to understand that there are many archaeologists (like myself) who would give almost anything to be able to have all scheduled sites put down imediately to permanent pasture with suitable forms of compensation for the farmer. Unfortunately we live in a real and unfair world and we all know that this is going to be hellishly difficult to achieve if at all. But simply allowing all the metal finds to be taken out of it is not a solution to the main problem.

In order for detectorists, archaeologists and heritage managers to agree common principles for the way forward, there would have to be a general understanding of why archaeologists have the concepts they do have, why the laws are written as they are, how the archaeologist works, why and so on.

I think there would also be the issue of identifying the differing aims of different areas of the discipline, the academic will often have different ideas from those of us more intimately concerned with protecting the historic environment, those who spend their lives studying Roman or Celtic coins or Saxon brooches are going to have different views from those who dream only of studying stratified Neolithic peat deposits and coprolites (old sh*t).

We of course would have to understand what you want and need and try to find ways that the two do not come into conflict and in particular contribute to the protection and sustainability of the historic environment. It is very clear that there IS no "unified voice" of the UK detectorist community, there are several groups within you - as this poll seems already to be demonstrating.

Unless there is this attempt to understand the fundamental and complex and interconnected issues involved on both sides, any attempts at discussion will just degenerate into a dialogue of the deaf (.."eh?") where the attempts of both sides to meet the others' needs will be doomed to failure.

This mutual understanding perhaps will of course come as there is increasing co-operation, but the whole area is so full of subtle complexities that by such means alone it is obviously not going to be so easy or rapid a process as some seem to think. But that's what makes the challenge more interesting perhaps.

I MAY be wrong in saying this Paul, but i get the feeling that you,on your side of the fence ,have your doubts as to any harmonious workable situation that could occur in the near future? The reasons for both sides of interests seem miles apart to be able to co-exist possibly.