Should archaeologists and MD's work more together

Here we have placed past articles that may be of interest to all who visit
our Forum. New members please look in here to see if your question
has already been covered.

Should archaeologists and MD's work more together

Yes - definately
16777215
100%
Yes - but only within guidlines
59
0%
Not sure
3
0%
No - but there may be exceptions
13
0%
No - absolutely not
10
0%
 
Total votes: 16777300

paul_beecham
meble kuchenne warszawa

Post by paul_beecham »

I agree with Paul that the issues are more complex than is immediately apparent, (isn't that always the way), but the important thing is that these things are being discussed and progress is being made (however slowly that may be).
In fairness to those who have suggested schemes for detecting scheduled sites, many have been addressing the problem of nighthawking, proposing that recovery and recording of metal objects would leave nothing for nighthawks to find.

Cheers,
Paul.

User avatar
deepseeker
UKDN Supporter - Diamond
UKDN Supporter - Diamond
Posts: 2894
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:30 pm
Main Detector: XP Deus
Location: Manchester

Post by deepseeker »

proposing that recovery and recording of metal objects would leave nothing for nighthawks to find
I think that this line from Paul Beecham is quite important, I am all for detecting scheduled sites under the supervision of an archaeological unit whereby a signal is 'pegged out' and excavated by the unit, but I get the feeling that most (yet hopefully some) detectorists want access to these sites as open sites, and wish to recover finds themselves wheever they feel like going to the site, could anyone justify (shitehawks need not reply !!) why they get this urge to have every plot off land available, just for them ?? Just accept that you cannot wander into every plot of historic land unless you are a member of Fathers 4 Justice and wearing a Batman suit :shock:
sent from my PC using the keyboard

You are entitled to your opinion, even though it's wrong

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS

paul_beecham

Post by paul_beecham »

I have no idea which view is prevalent amongst detectorists, but I sincerely hope that the majority of us feel as you do.

Cheers,
Paul.

User avatar
petethedig
UKDN Valued Member and Diamond Supporter
UKDN Valued Member and Diamond Supporter
Posts: 16753
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 2:41 pm
Main Detector: Minelab Etrac
Location: Gloucestershire
Contact:

Post by petethedig »

Corrine we are at present working hard to bring together the people who will be involved with the Liaison group. Won't be too much longer, but hopefully you can appreciate that some of the invited will maybe want to think about it. I can't see it doing much until into next week although we may just get on with a few things in the meanwhile.
Last edited by petethedig on Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
deepseeker
UKDN Supporter - Diamond
UKDN Supporter - Diamond
Posts: 2894
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:30 pm
Main Detector: XP Deus
Location: Manchester

Post by deepseeker »

Corrine if you are stuck for something to ponder :wink: , have a look at Paul Barford's excellent post on the PAS forum that should keep us busy for a few weeks !! :shock:
sent from my PC using the keyboard

You are entitled to your opinion, even though it's wrong

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS

Steve-B

Post by Steve-B »

You consider Pauls post excellent?.. have you really read it?

I think in main it echoes his never ending quest to have the hobby controlled by whatever means he can employ to do so. Yes he has raised soem interesting points that deserve discussion, but the overall theme of the post i find extremely worrying, as a detctorists.

Please try to remember that what has been taking place on PAS and on here has been to to help the hobby progress past the arguements and the old days of secular fighing, to work in cooperation with other bodies to do this, to help protect the hobby...and I dont think the intent was that was to be just for an elite, but for all of us at whatever level we wish to participate at.

I believe there is room for the hobby to move on, progress and to become a dscipline either alongside or as a part of of archaeology as whole, but not and never at the expense of the hobby itself....

User avatar
deepseeker
UKDN Supporter - Diamond
UKDN Supporter - Diamond
Posts: 2894
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:30 pm
Main Detector: XP Deus
Location: Manchester

Post by deepseeker »

The cynic is one who never sees a good quality in a man, and never fails to see a bad one. He is a human owl, vigilant in darkness, and blind to light, mousing for vermin, and never seeing noble game.
sent from my PC using the keyboard

You are entitled to your opinion, even though it's wrong

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS

paul_beecham

Post by paul_beecham »

Bear in mind the code is VOLUNTARY.
People can participate at whatever level they wish. However, detectorists will probably find it more rewarding to observe as much of the guidelines as they can, as this will open up more opportunities for working closely with professionals.
Paul's motives are irrelevant, as it will be a fully discussed and mutually agreed version of his proposals that end up in the code, if at all. If you stop panicking and instead turn your mind to accomodating the gist of his ideas while finding ways to avoid what you see as the dangerous pitfalls, then it should all turn out for the best. A bit of paranoia is a good thing, but it needs to be harnessed in a constructive way, or else we'll be throwing the baby out with the bath water. :)

Cheers,
Paul.

User avatar
Dino - UK
Registered User + UKDN Magazine Contributer
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:26 am
Main Detector: CTX3030, Dual field
Location: North Devon
Contact:

Post by Dino - UK »

deepseeker wrote:
proposing that recovery and recording of metal objects would leave nothing for nighthawks to find
I think that this line from Paul Beecham is quite important, I am all for detecting scheduled sites under the supervision of an archaeological unit whereby a signal is 'pegged out' and excavated by the unit, but I get the feeling that most (yet hopefully some) detectorists want access to these sites as open sites, and wish to recover finds themselves wheever they feel like going to the site, could anyone justify (shitehawks need not reply !!) why they get this urge to have every plot off land available, just for them ?? Just accept that you cannot wander into every plot of historic land unless you are a member of Fathers 4 Justice and wearing a Batman suit :shock:
Hi Deepseeker,
the only scheduled sites that I wish to detect are the sites that are contained in land that I personally have the farmers permission to detect. These are sites under plough that even the farmer cannot understand why I'm not allowed on them. In his words, "the plough does more damage than your digger".
I've stayed off them for the last 10 years and shall continue to do so if that's how it is to be.
I'm certainly not one of your so called "most" that feel scheduled sites should be open as a free for all, I am fortunate enough to have permission on over 75,000 acres of Cambridgeshire / Norfolk soil, and believe me there are plenty of sites on that acreage that aren't scheduled that will keep me busy for years.
However there are farmers around that have a genuine interest in the history under their fields, and it is these that I addressed my question around. It is these farmers that are not in it for monetry gain, but who give the finds I make to the Fenland Museums to preserve the heritage of the area.
Regards,
Dino.
Me? I'm perfectly balanced...got a chip on both shoulders!

Image
Minelab CTX3030, GMP V4.

Image

CraigA

Post by CraigA »

I am in total disagreement of detectorists being controlled by Archaeologists. This is an impossibility!! They have serious problems in controlling themselves. If we record and photograph every item which is not junk, which would include anything unidentified items we would be more organised than the archies.
I know that some may think that this seems a bit OTT but it is not.
I have tried to find out in the past how many digs over 20 years old are there which have never been and most probably never will be published???
I know of a few and one especially where the man in charge has now been shunned by other archaeologists and he still has the finds of the site which had continual occupation for 5000 years!!!!! If I had the stuff in my house I am sure that the MIBaj (Men in Bloody awful jumpers) would of been sent round. One rule for them...........
If I have to record my finds and hand them over why do the archies get away with it. I am of the opinion that if guidelines are being decided for us, surely any archy involvement should be to the same standards they use.

User avatar
deepseeker
UKDN Supporter - Diamond
UKDN Supporter - Diamond
Posts: 2894
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:30 pm
Main Detector: XP Deus
Location: Manchester

Post by deepseeker »

rueval, I too do not want to be controlled by Archaeologists, my point was that if a site is scheduled then leave alone unless an archaeological unit requests your assistance, then I hope that the finds would be retrieved by the unit after pegging out the signal. thus detering the shitehawks from easy pickings.

Thanks for the clarification Dino, hopefully your dreams will come into fruition if the recording scheme put forward by Badger could be adopted. I admire your restraint in not detecting on the scheduled site even though the landowner has 'allowed'you to do so.
sent from my PC using the keyboard

You are entitled to your opinion, even though it's wrong

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS

Badger

Post by Badger »

I will have to say (I would though!!) that I think that the two sides of the fence are infact standing next to each other metaphorically... as the poll on UKDetectornet and on BAJR show ... the vast majority (80% ish are in favour of working together (albeit this is a small sample)

The question of scheduled sites as with what archaeologists do and what detectorists do is just based on a lack of information.

Bloody hell... even as a county archaeologist I am still not informed when a University digs up a scheduled site with the agreement of the National Heritage Body... I sometimes wonder why sites are scheduled too.... though it seems that a rationalisation is to take place in Scotland... where a site must pass a stringent mumber of tests... includeing a measure of preservation, regional and national importance, rarity of site type etc etc.

If and only if... a site will not be damaged I believe it should be left until a really good reason comes up to investigate it in scrupulous detail. SAMs are our treasure store for the future... if it aint broke don' fix it.

As to a mutual distrust... fair enough.. but it is time to meet in nomans land and share a tot of rum, chat, and discover that we are both really after the same thing. I am learning a lot about detectorists and having my own views changed and challanged.


(good Scots joke coming up..... why are Scots not Racist??? because we are too busy being Biggoted!!... :lol: ")

As I have said before I think a national meeting would be a good thing with delegates and talks from all involved... in York perhaps???

I cold see it as a good way of learning about each other in more depth.

jeb

Post by jeb »

with respect badger , i hardly see how you can say 80% of detectorists want to work together with Archie's when only out of 1468 members (Detectorists) 85 have voted,It may be a different tale if the other1383 detectorists had voted. This is not a true reflection of what detectorists overall feel, no more is it a true fact that archaeologists all over the UK are wanting to shake hands a be friends with the Metaldetecting fraternity.
to be honest with you , how actually do we know, that outside your circle of detector friendly Archie's, all the rest are not happy with your stance on all this.Could you care to answer this please?

Saabman

Post by Saabman »

Jeb, with respect - I'm not sure that your thinking is sound . . . if 69 out of 85 of detectorists in a poll state that they wish to work together with archaeologists, then I would say this was a good result for those wishing it was so . . . wouldn't you? Isn't that democracy? It doesn't matter if 2000 couldn't be bothered to vote. That's the result so far!
So, Badger is right - 80% of voters in the UKDN poll wish to further good relations with archaeologists. This could change, of course . . .

petem

Post by petem »

I have to agree Jeb with only 85 votes cast, from a membership of 1468, it would be difficult to describe UKDN as the voice of metal detecting.
It would seem most people couldn't give a toss about the politics & just log on for the banter & to see, post & ID finds.
I have cast my vote by the way.

Locked

Return to “ARCHIVE MATERIAL”