PAS and Rallies

[BAJR Host]

I would be interested to hear the opinions about the 'duty' of PAS at Rallies.. there is much talk about recoding, and the importance of recording. Should the PAS contemplate cooperation with archaeologists and local groups to ensure an adequate field presence and methodology. The latest PAS thinking is recording to the nearest 100m square as acceptable, and theat they are only there by invitation, so don't want to upset anyone, by asking for anyting more.

My question is really this.. recording is one thing.. but it just ends up as a big list nothing more... location is the other, when the big list becomes useful. More and more detectorists support recording... should rallies that don't record locations be supported by the PAS... jsut because - or should they show some cahonies and say... NO... we realise that with out proper locational data, you may as well put everything in a bucket, take a photo and send it to our central office.

PAS needs support... and must be big enough to accept it. When it is in danger of being torn apart, we stood by it... but if it feels that it can - it will ignore advice. Can't have it both ways.

And a special treat for IFA members of the PAS...

as a member of the IFA, you should be aware of the potential to give archaeological legitimacy to events and activities for which you have no real responsibility.

The PAS have no control of rallies.... should they give them legitamcy if no locational recording occurs

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[John Walford]

I have been involved with the last two 'Weekend Wanderers' rallies near Wantage (see British Archaeology Jan/Feb 200:face-thinks:, where collaboration with local volunteers proved essential. Despite having four FLOs and one assistant FLO on site, the volume of finds coming in was almost overwhelming. The volunteers were able to relieve some of the pressure by taking in finds, issuing receipts, noting findspots and, where suitably knowledgeable, they could also screen out items which were not worth recording and check through junk bags for any unrecognised hidden gems (a rusty bit of lorica segmenta turned up this way). This left the FLOs free to focus entirely on identifying and describing objects.

The way findspots were recorded at these rallies was to have photocopied maps of the search area at the recording desk, and to ask the detectorists to indicate on these roughly where each find came from. I found that if they struggled to orientate themselves then reference to the contours often helped, especially given the number of dry valleys and other distnctive features on site. If they had taken GPS readings then these were also noted. Although this recording method is a little bit crude, and individual findspots are clearly imprecise, the overall quality of the data was perhaps analagous to fieldwalking plots, and was sufficient to suggest the extent of manuring scatters and to provide a likely date for certain cropmarks.

I must admit to being a little bit confused about your description of 'rallies that don't record locations'. I thought that providing findspots was down to the individual detectorist rather than being a policy imposed by the rally organisers. I got the feeling that the detectorists who brought finds to us for recording were generally honest and happy to share information as best they could. I can't think of any cases we came across where findspots were deliberately withheld (although a few had forgotten or got them muddled up).

As I am neither a member of the IFA or a PAS employee, I will use that as an excuse to dodge the final question about 'legitimising' events. Perhaps someone else wants to risk a comment on that one?

John

"Hidden wisdom and buried treasure, what use is there in either?" (Ecclesiasticus ch20 v30)

[BAJR Host]

Thanks John, thats a very useful post...

I should clarify that providing data is indeed up to the individual... - I am trying to get the detials on whether innaccurate data is better than nothing... or if there is another way (for example the Water Newton Method) - There are plenty folk who are happy to pitch in... and the PAS would be overwhelmed at these events otherwise... we.. and by that I mean we can all do what we are good at. Rallies exist.. Rallies are legal.... rallies find things.... how can we record what is found - not get in the way of detectorists - however detectorists must accept responsibility as well... as many many do... the PAS should not be supporting anything short of recording properly... even your method is better than nought.. and has shown that it can work... so I can agree with that... there are levels and degrees ... I would like to see rallies accept it too.

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[John Walford]

I think that in some cases poor data is still of value. For instance Roman military equipment is almost unknown from the Oxfordshire / Berkshire area, as the Romans legions did not hang around there very long. Thus even if the piece of lorica segment from the ralley was only provenanced to 'Berkshire Downs near Wantage', it would still be of note as a particularly rare find for the area.

More generally speaking there will always be finds which, because of their rarity, or typological or artistic importance, or historical connections, are inherently worth recording. The lack of a good findspot might be regrettable, but that doesn't mean they should be discarded as worthless.

"Hidden wisdom and buried treasure, what use is there in either?" (Ecclesiasticus ch20 v30)

[BAJR Host]

I would agree that data is better than no data - ( just look at my bitter fight last year ) - what I would be asking is that should the PAS be looking at a better way of recording rather than a map in a tent and a hopeful look. Fortunately many detectorists know how to read a map - but looking at what can be done .. Water Newton, Corfe and through to less accurate but still useful locational rallies such as Thornborough and Peter Welch's big rally near Wantage. Rallies that 'just' have a tent for recording stuff - should be a thing of the past. It has been shown that nothing 'bad' happens ... everyone has a fine time, and at the end of the day, everyone has contributed to something tangible. AND I would say... get local people involved as well... PAS can't bend so much - and many many detectorists would support them, if they would open up a bit more


"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[John Walford]

It's a tricky question. I can see the value in the Water Newton approach, but I can also see problems with doing things that way as standard. The Wantage rallies, for instance, covered several square miles of very undulating ground, and produced well over 500 recorded finds in a weekend. I dread to think how many volunteers would be needed to cover that amount of land and ensure every marker pin was found and recorded. We did experiment with having a few teams out in the field with GPS, but they soon became very isolated specks in a very large landscape.

I'm may be straying into heresy when I say this, but sometimes I wonder if precise findspots are always of value when dealing with unstratified topsoil finds. I can see cases where they obviously are; where an object was deposited in a specific place for a specific reason (eg furnished burials, votive deposition around specific features) or where they relate to a specific and very localised activity, but what about casual losses and redeposited material? To give an example, if a medieval peasant lost a buckle whilst ploughing, the exact spot where he lost it would be random and there would have been a near enough equal chance of of him having lost it at any other point in the fields which he worked. Thus significance attatches more to the area of the find (within the open fields of a particular village) than to the precise location. Similarly, if a coin dropped on a Roman farmstead was carried downslope in hillwash its location would be semi-random: the fact it was found downslope of the settlement would be significant, but its precise XYZ co-ords would be random.

I realise that there may be dificulty in deciding exactly which finds do and don't merit an exact findspot, but perhaps we could save ourselves unnecessary recording effort by giving some thought to the matter and drawing up some basic guidelines (on a site by site basis if necessary)? It could be argued, for instance, that a dot on a map, to +/- 100m, is good enough for medieval base metal dress accessories found in areas of former open fields, but that more precise findspots would be of value if found on a DMV. Perhaps by working this way we could keep the number of spots to be GPSed to a manageable level (and reduce the number of markers detectorists would have to carry).


"Hidden wisdom and buried treasure, what use is there in either?" (Ecclesiasticus ch20 v30)

[BAJR Host]

I think that debate is very healthy.. and WN was to my mind level III rally... ie... we know archaeology is there ( see below) - though I look forward to see how this years one fares with a lesser degree of accuracy. a LEVEL IV rally is something like near a battlefield where anything less than GPS is useless - a LEVEL II or less would suit your method.. and most rallies would be like that. I think that you can't have a one size fits all.. but hope ... really hope that rally organisers lead the way ... rather than any other option... if they don't feel like they are leading there will be a feeling of being forced... and no-body likes being forced - wether they agree or not.

I actually agree with you ... and the important thing is the recording... there must be a way of recording AND having fun... there must be a way.. and i realise it must be universally (well as much as it can be) agreed on.

You actually bring up valid and sensible points... very similar to the recording of every pebble in a medieval road... where you have to ask... did the road builder individually place every pebble... and what is the relevance. my Rally levels are here:

Rally Types and actions to take

Type I rally. (PAS aware of rally and can accept finds either at rally or afterwards)

After contacting the County Archaeologist or HER officer, it is clear that nothing is really known about the area.
The rally takes place and interesting or important or recordable finds are recorded either at the Rally or afterwards… It would be good for everyone to know what was found… and what it ‘means’

Type II rally (PAS aware and provision made for FLOs on site - Archaeologists invited to provide additional help (photography and archaeological advice))

After contacting the County Archaeologist or HER officer, it is clear that there is known archaeology however as no ‘below the ploughsoil’ detecting then further information, ploughsoil artefact rescue will be of great use, recording of interesting or important or recordable finds should take place either at the rally or afterwards. It would be good for everyone to know what was found… and what it ‘means’, especially if important new information or sites are found thanks to this. GPS location of finds should be considered, and a method of managing it in conjunction with archaeologists investigated at the earliest possible – It should be perfectly reasonable (for commercial rallies) to allow for at the least covering expenses for archaeologists as well as proving the equipment needed to carry out a basic record.

Type III rally (PAS aware and provision made for FLOs on site Archaeologists invited to provide additional help (photography and archaeological advice in the fieldand to oversee student volunteers in Geolocating finds)

After contacting the County Archaeologist or HER officer, it is clear that there is known archaeology and the potential for significant archaeology - however as no ‘below the ploughsoil’ detecting then further information, ploughsoil artefact rescue will be of great use, recording of interesting or important or recordable finds should take place either at the rally or afterwards (though ideally it would take place at the rally. It would be good for everyone to know what was found… and what it ‘means’, especially if important new information or sites are found thanks to this. GPS location of finds should be considered, and a method of managing it in conjunction with archaeologists investigated at the earliest possible – It should be perfectly reasonable (for commercial rallies) to allow for at the least covering expenses for archaeologists as well as proving the equipment needed to carry out a basic record.


Type IV rally (PAS aware and provision made for a number of FLOs on site Archaeologists essential to provide additional help (photography and archaeological advice field and use of accurate GPS equipment and to oversee student volunteers in conjunction with local groups sub metre GPS required, long term funding commitment and no loss of finds.)

After contacting the County Archaeologist or HER officer, it is clear that there is not only known archaeology and the potential for significant archaeology but it is a battle site – This is where it gets interesting… as where other site types are subsurface and the ploughsoil contains artefacts that have been pulled up from sealed contexts and features.. the battlesite starts at the top of the ploughsoil down… the entire ground surface is the site. The fragility is exceptional… a broken buckle, a line of lead shot, a button, a piece of armour or a fragment of stirrup… without exact location of each of these items, without recording of every scrap, the story that could be told will be lost forever… you could change history… discovering that the lines of battle are different from previously thought… that a cavalry charge took place there, that a cannon position was here not there, and that affected its field of fire… the possibilities to change history are enormous. Think two men in a trench and the extensive use of metal detecting…!

Here – it could be argued that the one type of event that would not suit a battlefield would be a rally….. and if such an event took place on a known battlefield the amount of preparation would have to be done long in advance… here, the locations would have to be mapped using either diff GPS or a Total Station Theodolite, allowing sub metre accuracy, there would have to be elements of fieldwalking, a serious investigation into archaeological input and finds identification (with a need to retain most finds to analyse further.. as it would be difficult in most cases to properly identify slight features that could tell the difference between a brown bess trigger guard and a continental musket type… or what type and period the lead shot came from… whether that was a piece of iron or part of a arquebus shot..
And when people left the field it would not end there, as reports would need to be written, information collated, artefacts examined, conservation of artefacts, historical analysis, etc etc… a major commitment… So would it be worth considering?

If you had the time, the money, the commitment, and were part of a larger project that also involved the local community, then perhaps yes… properly organised, funded (you could get funding from HLF even) and with enough specialists and archaeologists to ensure that what you found was not just saved from the ground, but saved from obscurity




"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[SalonKitty]

I like to think that this years's Water-Newton rally had considerably more than a 'map in a tent and a hopeful look'. Many days were spent preparing and we have plenty of good data. It's an interesting fact that the majority of detectorists remember where they found all their objects and are perfectly capable and willing to point with a high level of accuracy at a map to give a grid reference.

Just one question, do you really think it's practical to impose a relatively convoluted find spot recording system on to people who at the end of the day have paid to come and enjoy their hobby and don't want to take part in something that detracts from their detecting time? We rely on the continued good will between detectorists and ourselves to ensure that we record as many artefacts and their location as possible.

[m300572]

Its not a case of "imposing a convoluted find spot recording system" on "people who have paid to come and enjoy their hobby"

Archaeology as a profession has signally failed, over the last thirty years or so, to actually get across to the metal detecting hobby what it is we do, what we are interested in (generally the same as a lot of the detectorists) and how we need to collect information to enable us to produce a framework for the finds that are made.

Your "just one" question gives the impression that you view detectorists as only interested in collecting as many bits of pretty metal as possible with no real interest in what these bits of metal are and what they mean and who will in no way cooperate if it takes ten minutes out of hteir detecting time over the two days of a rally.

What Mr Hosty is trying to do is come up with a system that the metal detecting hobby can buy in to, and contribute to, and which will potentially give their finds collections much greater value in information terms. And to come up wit ha graded system of recording so that some rally sites are accepted by the organisers as needing a much higher level of recording than others and will be prepared to sell this to the attendees and seek extra help from archaeologists to enable this recording to be carried out.

[SalonKitty]

So do you think the archaeologists should be helping out free of charge? Do you know how many rallies there are around the country? A lot of archaeologists would have an awful lot of busy weekends, most probably un-paid. I know most of us are archaeologists for the love of it, not for the money but that is pushing it a bit far.

[m300572]

"So do you think the archaeologists should be helping out free of charge? "

No, I suspect that we have all given up a fair amount of our weekends and evenings already (at least I know I have in my career) and got to the point where we won't do it unless its funded.

On the other paw, there is a body of potential volunteers to assist in the local societies (providing they don't have the same poisoned attitude towards detecting that a reasonably large share of professional archaeologists do)and while there are a large number of rallies, support for PAS recording and coordinating the local amateurs is the sort of job the Counties should do - and I know all the county based people will complain about being overworked etc but all my contracts from Counties had a clause that allowed evening and weekend working if required - one weekend per county per year would probably cover a lot of the big rallies.

[BAJR Host]

quote:So do you think the archaeologists should be helping out free of charge?

Interesting question... and linked to the do you think that MD societies and individuals should help archaeology units for free?

things cost... and there is a need - question number one is do you actually need an archaeologist there at all? could an amateur group or locals get involved?


quote: It's an interesting fact that the majority of detectorists remember where they found all their objects and are perfectly capable and willing to point with a high level of accuracy at a map to give a grid reference.


Hmmm... I don't doubt people are able to point to a map and say where they found artefact's.. many are indeed ex-service indeed. I would however think carefully about verification.. I would accept that as true, if there had been back up data to go with it.. ie.. cross referenced. as it stands the only evidence for the accuracy is that the person said that is where they found it.... which is not the same.

It does however, raise Johns point of does it matter... and thats a good point... does it matter where stuff came from? well it does seem to have caused a small bit of trouble when it came to the silver sceatta’s may have to be classed as treasure, because they were found in the same field ( so these were only located to the same field - if a closer findspot had been available then their relationship would have been clearer - please correct me if I am wrong here, and they were located closer)

Does it indeed not matter until afterwards... and a field location is actually all that is needed... it is worth considering (though I was shot down by certain folks last year for only recording to the nearest 5m - and the IFA certainly had something to say about that terrible lack of accuracy too)

anyway... it is worth considering Salon, that the quickest, easiest and least disruptive method will indeed be the one to adopt.


quote:Do you know how many rallies there are around the country

Yes :D

Two final points:


quote: relatively convoluted find spot recording system

Find something ----> put it in bag (already with a number on it)---> write the number on a small pinflag and pop it in the ground.

no need to locate yourself, remember where you are, anything... find--->bag--->flag I would not call that convoluted.... no more than looking for numbered poles at 100m spacing, and recognising where you are in relation to them.



quote:We rely on the continued good will between detectorists and ourselves

by we... I take it you mean PAS - yes it is voluntary system, but should PAS (which includes archaeologists as well as IFA members) reduce the recognised minimum requirements with a shrug and we gotta guv... or they will take the ball away.

PAS do a great job... but there are other people out here willing to help.... and detectorists willing to help... Should 'we do it for nothing? Don't know should we do community work? lectures? YAC clubs? weekend walks? :face-huh: up to the individual.

It is nice to get some dosh though... and I can but agree with all that m300572 says...








"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[SalonKitty]

Re the Sceattas, they were all found by different people over the three days. Each one of them had a seperate grid reference in the field in which they were found, so not just to the field but to a specific location within it.

I haven't looked at the data yet but I know that a high percentage of the objects recorded with us have a specific grid reference within the field in which they were found. In fact we were aware during the three days of patterns forming along various trackways.

I think it's important to remember that a metal detecting rally is not an archaeological survey and never will be. People don't go out and walk in neat rows, they all zoom to where the action is. We are also never going to see all the finds that are made at these events. It's difficult to say what percentage of people at the rally came and recorded with us but it was fairly apparent that a proportion of objects found were not recorded.

I believe that this years WN rally went well and we certainly had some good feedback from detectorists on the find spot recording system. I don't want to get into whether one system is 'better' than another. I think there are things to recommend the method used this year and the one used last year. We did have some comments that some detectorists didn't like the system last year because they had to carry more equipment and it took longer but equally, there could have been plenty of people who preferred it-we just didn't hear from them.

At the end of the day, six representatives of PAS were there, along with the field archaeologist and two very helpful volunteers. Everbody worked extremely hard and gave it 110% with the resources that we had.

I'd like to say a very big thank you to all the detectorists who took part in the find spot locating system and recorded their finds with us. I'd like to encourage them all to carry on doing it as everything they record adds a little piece to the picture.

[BAJR Host]

Thats good to hear...re the sceattas.. and the rest.... so I take it that the locational data showed they were/were not connected.

I think trying to say one system is better than another... or that last year was more complicated than this year etc... is not a useful exercise .. as previously mentioned, there is no check on the locational accuracy one way or other... though the trackway info sounds very interesting... and once again shows the value of locational data...



quote:I think there are things to recommend the method used this year and the one used last year that’s exactly it... and I am able to point you to some hard data on who thought what about the previous system ... the good and the bad...

http://www.sha.org/about/conferences/documents/ThomasSHApaper.pdf

it has some stats and evaluation of the whole. So I look forward to the similar on this rally, --- this is not a game of who is better… though when you consider the amount of sustained abuse I dealt with, (I even had to call in the police after a couple of incidents) and the eventual outcome I have to confess that I was in a different situation last year... to give you all an idea... here is a typical requirements that were set for me:


quote:Metal detecting does have a place in archaeology, and where a systematic and recorded metal detecting survey is undertaken alongside topographical survey and fieldwalking, the results can be very informative…… In order for us to offer a considered opinion on your project proposal, I would ask you to provide a detailed project design……. Including

1. The size and scale of the survey grid .
2. Your proposed recording methods, including the accurate mapping of all findspot locations, procedures for reporting and the presence of recording staff during the survey
3. Long term care of artefacts, metallic or otherwise
4. A set of research objectives, making use of the regional
research frameworks and any national programmes relating especially to
Roman small towns and their hinterlands
quote:I should let you know that we have just been informed by English Heritage that they are intending to extend the scheduling…….these are not new proposals, and had originally been considered during the 70s/80s, but as you will appreciate the current issue has brought these to the fore again.


quote:Our position is that recording should not be optional.


quote:You seem supportive of the idea of a final report and archive, so do you(BAJR) mean to come across as defensive? If the methodology and recording are robust, a final report that would demonstrate the value of these events and add to our knowledge should be a logical outcome? … indeed see - http://www.scribd.com/doc/2071208/FullWN07Report


So you see… my goalposts were set pretty close together… and I had to try and meet them… there was even talk of getting a geophysical survey of 100 hectares! Prior to the rally…

I think the best report on it was here…

http://www.ourpasthistory.com/metal/the-dvrobrivae-project-august-2007

and the final lines sum it up.

quote:This was first and foremost a detecting rally - not archaeology. You could say it was a “best of both worlds” rally where we all proved we could co-operate without getting in each others way. Most of us came away feeling that we had worked together as equals, that we got on with each other, we had respect for each other and that we all can learn from each other.

The rally was very much about sharing and caring for our history and heritage. The final report by Badger will tell a story – a true one at that! - of the landscape and the shadow of the people who walked this ground before us.

The rally detectorist's were shown in a good light – we were seen as people who care for our history and the importance of artefacts as much as any professional. As an added bonus BBC tv cameras were there to record it too to broadcast it to the nation.


Nobody is saying the WN 08 was crap. What perhaps we/I am saying… there are options and directions… WN07 was extraordinary … and failed/suceeded spectaluarly – it was then refined and got right in Corfe… no mess no fuss… no hassle at all.

I am sure there are a few that said that last year was crap.. complicated, overrun with archies… I can even guess who they were. Most detectorists see the value, and if it don’t slow them down… they are happy… you are right there… we have to engage… we have to think about joining forces… using what we have…

For example… I heard the fields changed suddenly, because of the weather.. so how things were coped with, changed… what lessons could be learned… where can the system be tweaked… where it worked and where it did not… this has to be constructive. Last years probably could not have got more accurate before getting into neat rows and 20 meter grids - it shows that accuracy can be achieved if needed.. with 300+ people … :face-huh: horses for courses, is what we need, and to do that we have to be honest. :face-approve:

Salon Kitty says

quote:I believe that this years WN rally went well and we certainly had some good feedback from detectorists on the find spot recording system. and thats what its about... good feedback, good results, good rally and another step forward.. and that... as they say is good to hear :face-approve:



"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[BAJR Host]

Have just had a long conversation with someone at the rally... adn very useful it was.. so a big congrads for what was done .. to everyone...

Lets see something build from this... I agree with Norman that the Rally Code should be about Rallies... not jsut archaeology at rallies.. but lets see some movement forward.. lets see some results... lets see some real cooperation. I chuckled about the pinflags... as they were a bone of contention at Water Newton ... at Corfe.. nobody complained.. so its more about what people feel like.

I would support a system of recording that fitted the site... from pinflags at one end ... to top or bottom of this or that field at the other. This is a hobby, but it does not have to mean that there is no responsibility to let others share. And those others have to realise that sharing is a two way process.. etc.. you see where I am going.

The preasures placed upon last year - those people should be ashamed of themselves for what they did.. thank goodness they backed off a bit this year. Though I am glad the field from last year got scheduled at last ;)

This was a hell of a rally to do... and you did it as good as it was possible to do. Now its time to look at how to do it better, quicker, whatever. One thing I got from the Corfe Rally was the green and white sheets... makes grabbing an artefact and coin sheet easy... or the opaque funnel attached to a camera... makes photography easy... both diffuse light AND a tripod! etc... all the methods need to be looked at and enhanced.. making the FLOs job easier.. and still keep the detectorists rally a detecting event.

nuf said... I better get ma Jordan maps ready!



"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[Flintmeister]

BAJR wrote: 'Interesting question... and linked to the do you think that MD societies and individuals should help archaeology units for free?'

I'm pretty sure there are some that do already David....and far more that would freely volunteer their time if they were asked. Of course, it can be a vicious circle of organisers/FLOs etc not knowing who they might ask for help. There are among detectorists growing numbers of hobbyists who are interested/skilled in a wide range of traditionally 'archaeological' aspects of finds recording. Many would be willing to volunteer, but are never asked - for many reasons.

He that mistrust is seldom beguiled - Ascham

[BAJR Host]

quote:I'm pretty sure there are some that do already David....and far more that would freely volunteer their time if they were asked. Of course, it can be a vicious circle of organisers/FLOs etc not knowing who they might ask for help. There are among detectorists growing numbers of hobbyists who are interested/skilled in a wide range of traditionally 'archaeological' aspects of finds recording. Many would be willing to volunteer, but are never asked - for many

Which is kinda what I wanted to hear... be said... and the point... the options are there ... the willingness is there... it just takes a few steps to do it! --- ppps By next year ... my all singing all dancing Find-a-Specialsit (including scores of detecting clubs and individuals) will be ready!

ppps have a good time in Corfe... think of me in Rammadan Jordan! ;)



"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[Deetektor]

I have no problem with reporting finds, at a rally or anywhere else.
An FLO at a rally which is on a productive site, can get overloaded with finds, even when they have an assistant. The only problems I've seen, are when someone wants to leave, and their find hasn't been processed.

There are still unfortunately those who (for whatever reason) wont record their finds with the PAS, not always through personal experiences, but because of what they perceive to be an ulterior motive behind the Scheme, or because someone else has written about a negative experience.
Another reason often quoted, is the PAS database software which is difficult to navigate. Although I don't see that as a reason not to record.

[BAJR Host]

Another reason often quoted, is the PAS database software which is difficult to navigate. Although I don't see that as a reason not to record.

damn wise words... both statements! Just because something upset you... does not mean that you should make others suffer... and the PAS database ois reknowned for its... er... user friendliness... (dare I say UKDFD ) However, there are lots of ways to record... PAS is the biggest... but lots of ways!

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[garybrun]

Been on my travels for quite awhile and have a lot of posts to get through.
Good to see this being debated.
Once again Corfe was a great success and a lot of knowledge I believe was added to the archaeological record.
"The times they are a changing" and quite a few of us are working hard to help bridge the misconceptions of both sides of the coin.

To those who archaeologists who ask "should we do it for free"?
Ask yourself.... should metal detectorists do if for free, spend their precious free time and money (good detectors cost nearly a £1000)to help archaeologists?



Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[JBM]

Gary has taken the words from my mouth.

As an OAP I spend all I can afford on equipment and traveling to sites plus accommodation when necessary to add to the nations knowledge with regards our historical past.

When we spent a few days with the "Two men in a Trench" team a few years back,we were covered for fuel costs and given a mid-day meal which was a great help, but were happy just to have been invited.

In general we work for love of what we do and believe in but its so very rare that we are asked to give our services which are free and we could be working as a team.

We are experts at what we do just as archaeologists are in their chosen field.

David has produced visual online list of detectorists and where they are located just waiting for yourselves to invite us along to work with you.

Well its time to head up the wooden steps,Goodnight all.:face-approve:Jerry.

Retired Aerospace manager after many years in the engineering industry..
Locating and preserving historical items for future generations to enjoy.

[Disgruntled Ex Digger]

Hosty,

I still a little confused by this. Why have a recording system? Why cant a metal detectorist just log his finds with the UKDFD to parish level, tick the box not to tell the HER about them and therefore act responsibly?

<< EDIT Hosty does not like provocative statements and signatures... you were asked politely to remove.. now I have done it for you.

You have a problem... call me. >>

[garybrun]

????????????????????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce70k5ewGpA

Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[BAJR Host]

Disgruntled... can you explain a bit more... it seems baffling... semi coherent even...

Make a sensible post please.

AUP reminder

* Present your opinions in a tactful and moderate fashion.
* Do not be aggressive towards other members on this forum.
* Be civil in your interaction! Do not vilify, abuse, denigrate or call other members names.


"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli