UKDN CoP

[BAJR Host]

1. Do not trespass. Before you start detecting obtain permission to search from the landowner/occupier, regardless of the status, or perceived status, of the land. Remember that all land has an owner. To avoid subsequent disputes you should consider obtaining written permission, and agreement in writing regarding the ownership of any finds you make.

2. Observe the laws concerning protected sites (e.g. those defined as Scheduled Monuments or Sites of Special Scientific Interest: you can obtain details of these from the landowner/occupier, Historic Environment Record or at www.magic.gov.uk). Take extra care when detecting near protected sites: for example, it is not always clear where the boundaries lie on the ground.

3. Consider joining one of the popular metal-detecting forums which can easily be found by doing an Internet search. This is one of the best ways to learn about all aspects of the hobby, and to take advantage of the collective knowledge of many thousands of members. (A great deal of expertise exists within the hobby, from researching sites to identifying finds, and from legal requirements to conservation.)

You might also wish to consider joining one or more of the many metal-detecting clubs around the country. (See http://www.ukdetectornet.co.uk/uk_clubs.htm for a list of clubs.)

4. Handle, clean, protect and store your finds in an appropriate manner. Conservation requirements vary according to the nature of the item, but specialist advice should always be sought if there is any uncertainty.

5. When detecting, always backfill your holes after excavating a find. They are a potential hazard to other users of the countryside.

6. If you excavate finds from undisturbed land (e.g. undisturbed pasture, or below the ploughsoil), use tools that will minimise the ground disturbance and any potential damage to stratified archaeological deposits. Reinstate excavated material as neatly as possible.

7. Make a note of your findspots so that they can be recorded with details of your finds. For finds that you believe could be of archaeological importance*, record the findspots as accurately as possible (i.e. to at least a one-hundred metre square, using an Ordnance Survey map or hand-held Global Positioning Device).

* A find of ‘archaeological importance’ is one that might indicate the presence of an archaeological site as opposed to a casual loss or discarded item. Archaeological sites include burial grounds, habitation sites, and battlegrounds. The presence of significant numbers of related items may indicate an archaeological site.

8. Respect the Country Code (leave gates and property as you find them and do not damage crops, frighten animals, or disturb ground nesting birds, and dispose properly of litter: see www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk).

9. Offer to keep the relevant landowner/occupier informed of any finds you make, and ensure that you have his/her agreement if you intend to publish details of the findspot.

10. Consider recording your finds so that the information they provide is accessible to researchers and the public at large. Recording is voluntary (other than ‘Treasure’ items, see 11 below), but is strongly recommended, as it is both rewarding for the finder and beneficial to our understanding of the past. You may choose to use the self-recording scheme operated by the UK Detecting Finds Database (UKDFD) (www.ukdfd.co.uk), the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) (www.findsdatabase.org.uk), your local HER or, for specific types of coin find, the Celtic Coin Index (CCI) (www.writer2001.com) or the Early Medieval Corpus (EMC) (www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/coins/emc )

11. Ensure that you understand and comply with the requirements of the Treasure Act (www.finds.org.uk), wreck law (www.mcga.gov.uk) and export licensing (www.mla.gov.uk).

12. Seek expert help if you discover something large below the ploughsoil, or a concentration of finds or unusual material, or wreck remains, and ensure that the landowner/occupier’s permission is obtained to do so. Reporting the find does not change your rights of discovery, but will result in far more archaeological evidence being discovered.

13. Call the Police and notify the landowner/occupier if you find any traces of human remains.

14. Call the Police or HM Coastguard, and notify the landowner/occupier, if you find anything that may be a live explosive: do not use a metal-detector or mobile phone nearby as this might trigger an explosion. Do not attempt to move or interfere with any such explosives.


Another day another WSI?

[BAJR Host]

Actually think that a merged Code, with elements from both would be a briliant document... I would add a couple of words here and there... but you have to admit, its not too bad ;)

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Actually think that a merged Code, with elements from both would be a briliant document... I would add a couple of words here and there... but you have to admit, its not too bad ;)
Pardon? Which bits do you mean, the ones plagiarised from the existing one, or the new AntiCoP bits? Please compare the two documents carefully, look at what precisely has been taken out and where the emphasis of the original document has been altered. To what degree is this now a "Code of Responsibility"? Responsibility to what and whom?

Sham, shame and shambles seems to me to be the only way one can summarise what we have seen going on around this issue over the past week. In a week, we've gone from an historic document being agreed and issued, to the need to explain some of the concepts in a "user guide" to a new "self-determined" and self-centred document which completely negates what the first one achieved.

So how does the voting on UKDN stand now? 190 something for the AntiCop and 40 for the existing one? So what now lies behind the mantra "the majority of detectorists in the UK are responsible"? Interestingly enough, if we look at those statistics, the number declaring for the (real) CoP still comes down to that 20% doesnt it? And the other 80% see their responsibilities differently from the way....
"The National Council for Metal Detecting.
The Country Land and Business Association.
The National Farmers Union.
The Council for British Archaeology.
English Heritage.
National Museums and Galleries of Wales.
Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
The British Museum.
The Portable Antiquities Scheme.
The Society of Museum Archaeologists.
Federation of Independent Detectorists.
The Royal Commission for the Ancient Monuments of Wales".....
see it. Sad, but true.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

Come on Paul dont beat about the bush, are you going to vote in favour or against?

Can you not for once find something positive in what we are trying to do?


www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

Come on Paul dont beat about the bush, are you going to vote in favour or against?

Can you not for once find something positive in what we are trying to do?


www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Can you not for once find something positive in what we are trying to do? I think if you check, a week ago I was very positive indeed about the detectorists having at long last agreed upon the Code of Practice. As I recall, you commented on that yourself on Britarch.

I see nothing at all in the "UKDN Self-Determined Alternative Code of Different Responsibility" (What IS its official title?) to be "positive" about. If individual detectorists reject the existing Code, they reject it, no need whatsoever to write a rival one.

Sham, shame and shambles.

Paul Barford

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Can you not for once find something positive in what we are trying to do? I think if you check, a week ago I was very positive indeed about the detectorists having at long last agreed upon the Code of Practice. As I recall, you commented on that yourself on Britarch.

I see nothing at all in the "UKDN Self-Determined Alternative Code of Different Responsibility" (What IS its official title?) to be "positive" about. If individual detectorists reject the existing Code, they reject it, no need whatsoever to write a rival one.

Sham, shame and shambles.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

Can we take that as your last word on the subject Paul?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

Can we take that as your last word on the subject Paul?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Sheddy]

Paul, rather than just labelling the UKDN Cop as a "sham, shame and shambles", could you be more objective in your criticism? Not meaning ot be rude, but what you have stated is hardly helpful.

[Sheddy]

Paul, rather than just labelling the UKDN Cop as a "sham, shame and shambles", could you be more objective in your criticism? Not meaning ot be rude, but what you have stated is hardly helpful.

[Steve-B]

quote:Paul, rather than just labelling the UKDN Cop as a "sham, shame and shambles", could you be more objective in your criticism? Not meaning ot be rude, but what you have stated is hardly helpful.

No, you have to learn Pauls rules Sheddy, that kind of a post is only wrong if one of us makes it... ;)



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

quote:Paul, rather than just labelling the UKDN Cop as a "sham, shame and shambles", could you be more objective in your criticism? Not meaning ot be rude, but what you have stated is hardly helpful.

No, you have to learn Pauls rules Sheddy, that kind of a post is only wrong if one of us makes it... ;)



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

On the other thread we at last get a comment on the text of the [u]UKDN Alternative Self-Defined Code of Practice for Responsible Detecting </u>(or whatever its to be called – maybe the Anti-Code-of-Practice, AntiCoP) which breaks the infernal circle of “fascinating� discussion of internal NCMD affairs which have been going in the “New Code of Practice in Detecting� thread all night. I think a reply would be more appropriate in this thread though, especially with regard those last comments.

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

quote:10. Consider recording your finds so that the information they provide is accessible to researchers and the public at large. Recording is voluntary (other than ‘Treasure’ items, see 11 below), but is strongly recommended, as it is both rewarding for the finder and beneficial to our understanding of the past. You may choose to use the self-recording scheme operated by the UK Detecting Finds Database (UKDFD) (www.ukdfd.co.uk), the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) (www.findsdatabase.org.uk), your local HER or, for specific types of coin find, the Celtic Coin Index (CCI) (www.writer2001.com) or the Early Medieval Corpus (EMC) (www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/coins/emc )
actually seems even more info than the

quote:Reporting any finds to the relevant landowner/occupier; and (with the agreement of the landowner/occupier) to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, so the information can pass into the local Historic Environment Record. Both the Country Land and Business Association (www.cla.org.uk) and the National Farmers Union (www.nfuonline.com) support the reporting of finds. Details of your local Finds Liaison Officer can be found at www.finds.org.uk, e-mail info@finds.org.uk or phone 020 7323 8611. there are words in there I would tweak, but in general the message is the same... record the finds that matter... and as both are voluntary (other than treasure items) I see no complete dropping of the PAS...?

Hmmm. I’m not quite sure we are reading this in the same way. To be frank, I find it astounding that you don’t see a difference. More words, and more “information� do not necessarily produce more ‘responsibility’. I think you are getting confused between a Code of Practice and an information sheet for detectorists.

1) Firstly the UKDN “AntiCode� certainly needs more than “tweaking�, for example as a recording medium the CCI online at the John Hooker address given is not a recording medium. It is a byproduct of the CCI http://web.arch.ox.ac.uk/coins/ccindex.htm . John is recovering from a serious illness and I don’t think will be adding new finds to the online database for some time.

2) In the “AntiCode� “Consider recording your finds� cf the original text. In the “AntiCode�, Recording is “strongly recommended�. But this is supposed to be a code of responsible detecting, not “good advice for new detectorists�. Either a detectorist DOES subscribe to the recording ethos or they do not. We are talking here about nothing other than preservation by documentation of what is taken away from the archaeological resource by private collectors. The UKDN “AntiCode� gives considerable leeway to the AntiCoP detectorist – they can call themselves “responsible� by it, but actually not record a single item (because they have “considered� it, but decided not to…). The idea of a CoP is to define in a way we all understand what is meant when somebody says “I am a responsible detectorist – I abide by the CoP�, the AntiCoP is written in a way that renders this meaningless. And thayt is a comment to other areas of the text, not jus its clause/point 10.

3) Where is the responsibility to the landowner as per the CoP mentioned here? The AntiCoP says “9. [b]Offer to keep the relevant landowner/occupier informed of any finds you make�, if you time it right and do it while he’s busy fixing the tractor, he might say “No, no need to keep bringing me all that tat, take it and do what you want with it� – well, they “[u]offered</u>� didn’t they? There is a subtle, but very important, difference between that (or the AntiCode’s “ensure that you have his/her agreement if you intend to publish details of the [u]findspot</u>�) and the CoP’s “Reporting any finds to the relevant landowner/occupier�. By the CoP, to do so is responsible detecting 9and of course also only common courtesy); but ensuring that the farmer does not bother you with messy details about what exactly you are taking from their fields and what you intend to do with it seems to be the concern of the authors of the AntiCoP. And yet that goes against what was specifically inserted in the draft text due to consultations with the bodies representing the landowners and users. The AntiCode goes against the express wishes of those bodies regarding the detectorist’s responsibility to the landowner and their agents.

4) AntiCoP “so that the information they provide is accessible to researchers and the public at large� which information? Here no mention is made of the HER as the primary destination and repository – concentrating on finds catalogues like UKDN, CCI and EMC.

5) An Anticode-abiding detectorist “may choose� to display their findings on the UKDFD, but that is (for reasons that have been exhaustively discussed elsewhere) NOT equivalent to reporting their finds to the PAS. The current CoP quite firmly states this, it does not recognise the UKDFD, and quite rightly so.
A detectorist “may choose� to go direct to the HER, bypassing the PAS, thus loading extra work on HER officers that the PAS is intended to take off their shoulders. In addition, which HER staff have the time to do the extra and quite specific “outreach� and “liaison� work with detectorists which it is the function of the PAS to do? What data transfer mechanisms are set up by the CCI and EMC to ensure HERs are kept updated with new finds?
The PAS has a central place in the CoP, but this key element in current state policy on artefact-hunting and collecting is relegated to a position alongside an ad hoc private online show-and-tell finds showcase, a near-defunct online Celtic coin catalogue and… the EMC.

6) Reporting “specific coin types� on specialised coin databases may separate that information from that concerning other finds from the site. Who is going to put it all back together again? The aim of PAS is to avoid such scattering of information about finds made by the public. Again, it would be irresponsible of a detectorist to deliberately ignore it.

7) The PAS has been set up with a specific series of tasks in relation to the public, including detectorists. The state has a specific policy with regard metal detecting, and in it a central role is currently played by the PAS. This UKDN AntiCode suggests a 'differently responsible' detectorist may opt to bypass, ignore or dismiss that – but still assert that they are “responsible�, because they’ve written themselves a “Code� which says they are. But they are not in the terms of the unwritten pact which has been created between ARM policies in the UK and the private collector of metal-detector hunted archaeological artefacts. The AntiCoP artefact hunters do not wish to see that the present Code is an integral part of that pact, part of the compromise. They dont want to compromise, they want to "self-determine", and comparison between this AntiCode and the existing CoP shows clearly where and why.

:face-thinks: The current CoP stresses that the approach it lays down is supported by the organizations representing landowning interests. In general in the wording of the AntiCoP has been “tweaked� to allow the AntiCoP detectorist to self-determine to what degree they adhere to any principles at all, including those affecting the landowner.

The AntiCode is itself a blatant and self-serving sham, it is the shame of the detecting community and potentially will reflect badly even on those that accept the existing Code, and it was born out of the shambles that clearly surrounds the way the consultation was handled within the detecting "community" and the various interests of fractions within it. Those are a few of the reasons why I say Sham, shame and shambles.

Paul Barford

[Paul Barford]

On the other thread we at last get a comment on the text of the [u]UKDN Alternative Self-Defined Code of Practice for Responsible Detecting </u>(or whatever its to be called – maybe the Anti-Code-of-Practice, AntiCoP) which breaks the infernal circle of “fascinating� discussion of internal NCMD affairs which have been going in the “New Code of Practice in Detecting� thread all night. I think a reply would be more appropriate in this thread though, especially with regard those last comments.

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

quote:10. Consider recording your finds so that the information they provide is accessible to researchers and the public at large. Recording is voluntary (other than ‘Treasure’ items, see 11 below), but is strongly recommended, as it is both rewarding for the finder and beneficial to our understanding of the past. You may choose to use the self-recording scheme operated by the UK Detecting Finds Database (UKDFD) (www.ukdfd.co.uk), the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) (www.findsdatabase.org.uk), your local HER or, for specific types of coin find, the Celtic Coin Index (CCI) (www.writer2001.com) or the Early Medieval Corpus (EMC) (www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/coins/emc )
actually seems even more info than the

quote:Reporting any finds to the relevant landowner/occupier; and (with the agreement of the landowner/occupier) to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, so the information can pass into the local Historic Environment Record. Both the Country Land and Business Association (www.cla.org.uk) and the National Farmers Union (www.nfuonline.com) support the reporting of finds. Details of your local Finds Liaison Officer can be found at www.finds.org.uk, e-mail info@finds.org.uk or phone 020 7323 8611. there are words in there I would tweak, but in general the message is the same... record the finds that matter... and as both are voluntary (other than treasure items) I see no complete dropping of the PAS...?

Hmmm. I’m not quite sure we are reading this in the same way. To be frank, I find it astounding that you don’t see a difference. More words, and more “information� do not necessarily produce more ‘responsibility’. I think you are getting confused between a Code of Practice and an information sheet for detectorists.

1) Firstly the UKDN “AntiCode� certainly needs more than “tweaking�, for example as a recording medium the CCI online at the John Hooker address given is not a recording medium. It is a byproduct of the CCI http://web.arch.ox.ac.uk/coins/ccindex.htm . John is recovering from a serious illness and I don’t think will be adding new finds to the online database for some time.

2) In the “AntiCode� “Consider recording your finds� cf the original text. In the “AntiCode�, Recording is “strongly recommended�. But this is supposed to be a code of responsible detecting, not “good advice for new detectorists�. Either a detectorist DOES subscribe to the recording ethos or they do not. We are talking here about nothing other than preservation by documentation of what is taken away from the archaeological resource by private collectors. The UKDN “AntiCode� gives considerable leeway to the AntiCoP detectorist – they can call themselves “responsible� by it, but actually not record a single item (because they have “considered� it, but decided not to…). The idea of a CoP is to define in a way we all understand what is meant when somebody says “I am a responsible detectorist – I abide by the CoP�, the AntiCoP is written in a way that renders this meaningless. And thayt is a comment to other areas of the text, not jus its clause/point 10.

3) Where is the responsibility to the landowner as per the CoP mentioned here? The AntiCoP says “9. [b]Offer to keep the relevant landowner/occupier informed of any finds you make�, if you time it right and do it while he’s busy fixing the tractor, he might say “No, no need to keep bringing me all that tat, take it and do what you want with it� – well, they “[u]offered</u>� didn’t they? There is a subtle, but very important, difference between that (or the AntiCode’s “ensure that you have his/her agreement if you intend to publish details of the [u]findspot</u>�) and the CoP’s “Reporting any finds to the relevant landowner/occupier�. By the CoP, to do so is responsible detecting 9and of course also only common courtesy); but ensuring that the farmer does not bother you with messy details about what exactly you are taking from their fields and what you intend to do with it seems to be the concern of the authors of the AntiCoP. And yet that goes against what was specifically inserted in the draft text due to consultations with the bodies representing the landowners and users. The AntiCode goes against the express wishes of those bodies regarding the detectorist’s responsibility to the landowner and their agents.

4) AntiCoP “so that the information they provide is accessible to researchers and the public at large� which information? Here no mention is made of the HER as the primary destination and repository – concentrating on finds catalogues like UKDN, CCI and EMC.

5) An Anticode-abiding detectorist “may choose� to display their findings on the UKDFD, but that is (for reasons that have been exhaustively discussed elsewhere) NOT equivalent to reporting their finds to the PAS. The current CoP quite firmly states this, it does not recognise the UKDFD, and quite rightly so.
A detectorist “may choose� to go direct to the HER, bypassing the PAS, thus loading extra work on HER officers that the PAS is intended to take off their shoulders. In addition, which HER staff have the time to do the extra and quite specific “outreach� and “liaison� work with detectorists which it is the function of the PAS to do? What data transfer mechanisms are set up by the CCI and EMC to ensure HERs are kept updated with new finds?
The PAS has a central place in the CoP, but this key element in current state policy on artefact-hunting and collecting is relegated to a position alongside an ad hoc private online show-and-tell finds showcase, a near-defunct online Celtic coin catalogue and… the EMC.

6) Reporting “specific coin types� on specialised coin databases may separate that information from that concerning other finds from the site. Who is going to put it all back together again? The aim of PAS is to avoid such scattering of information about finds made by the public. Again, it would be irresponsible of a detectorist to deliberately ignore it.

7) The PAS has been set up with a specific series of tasks in relation to the public, including detectorists. The state has a specific policy with regard metal detecting, and in it a central role is currently played by the PAS. This UKDN AntiCode suggests a 'differently responsible' detectorist may opt to bypass, ignore or dismiss that – but still assert that they are “responsible�, because they’ve written themselves a “Code� which says they are. But they are not in the terms of the unwritten pact which has been created between ARM policies in the UK and the private collector of metal-detector hunted archaeological artefacts. The AntiCoP artefact hunters do not wish to see that the present Code is an integral part of that pact, part of the compromise. They dont want to compromise, they want to "self-determine", and comparison between this AntiCode and the existing CoP shows clearly where and why.

:face-thinks: The current CoP stresses that the approach it lays down is supported by the organizations representing landowning interests. In general in the wording of the AntiCoP has been “tweaked� to allow the AntiCoP detectorist to self-determine to what degree they adhere to any principles at all, including those affecting the landowner.

The AntiCode is itself a blatant and self-serving sham, it is the shame of the detecting community and potentially will reflect badly even on those that accept the existing Code, and it was born out of the shambles that clearly surrounds the way the consultation was handled within the detecting "community" and the various interests of fractions within it. Those are a few of the reasons why I say Sham, shame and shambles.

Paul Barford

[Elgin]

Since the whole of that post and each one of the 8 main points it contains are in startling contrast to -

"Actually think that a merged Code, with elements from both would be a briliant document... I would add a couple of words here and there... but you have to admit, its not too bad"

... a structured response or refutation on each of your numbered points would be very welcome. Clearly, both viewpoints can't be right.

[Elgin]

Since the whole of that post and each one of the 8 main points it contains are in startling contrast to -

"Actually think that a merged Code, with elements from both would be a briliant document... I would add a couple of words here and there... but you have to admit, its not too bad"

... a structured response or refutation on each of your numbered points would be very welcome. Clearly, both viewpoints can't be right.

[kevmar]

I think paul is not only showing detectorists his very anti detecting
views yet(again) but also the profession he says he's part of.
Whenever something constructive,and positive is put forward,
to bring together ideas and cooperation between
what used to be ''them and us'' he pulls it apart,and picks away untill he wrecks any chance of moving forward,e.g PAS message forum and,
many other fora that see his agenda and exclude him from membership,as they don't agree with him.
Whilst he is free to do this,(as we are seeing on here),hard work,and good intentions are ruined.
I have heard that his audience is much smaller then it used to be,
and more and more people are bored with his constant bad mouthing,
and pessimism.
Let's just say,we are poles apart....
Best regards,
km.

[kevmar]

I think paul is not only showing detectorists his very anti detecting
views yet(again) but also the profession he says he's part of.
Whenever something constructive,and positive is put forward,
to bring together ideas and cooperation between
what used to be ''them and us'' he pulls it apart,and picks away untill he wrecks any chance of moving forward,e.g PAS message forum and,
many other fora that see his agenda and exclude him from membership,as they don't agree with him.
Whilst he is free to do this,(as we are seeing on here),hard work,and good intentions are ruined.
I have heard that his audience is much smaller then it used to be,
and more and more people are bored with his constant bad mouthing,
and pessimism.
Let's just say,we are poles apart....
Best regards,
km.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Elgin

... a structured response or refutation on each of your numbered points would be very welcome. Clearly, both viewpoints can't be right.
I too would like to see that, instead of the constant stuff we have here on about how well the NCMD communicates with its members and can write its own press releases. What surely is central is what responsible detecting can do for the archaeological resource and what irresponsible detecting deletes from it for ever. I think the existing CoP lays down a minimum for the "giving", while it seems to me that the self-defined UKDN AntiCode is primarily concerned with the "taking". And yes, they are indeed concepts which are poles apart.

The term "something constructive,and positive is put forward, to bring together ideas and cooperation between what used to be ''them and us'' " actually is a very good description of the existing Code of Practice launched just over a week ago. The Code which the AntiCoders reject outright and already wish to replace by one they have written for themselves, serving THEIR own self-defined interests and quite clearly not those of the archaeological resource and its long term conservation and study. Who actually is creating a "them and us" situation? Could we please discuss the Code and the UKDN AntiCode and not stoop yet again to personal and misleading comments of the nature of those above?

Paul Barford

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Elgin

... a structured response or refutation on each of your numbered points would be very welcome. Clearly, both viewpoints can't be right.
I too would like to see that, instead of the constant stuff we have here on about how well the NCMD communicates with its members and can write its own press releases. What surely is central is what responsible detecting can do for the archaeological resource and what irresponsible detecting deletes from it for ever. I think the existing CoP lays down a minimum for the "giving", while it seems to me that the self-defined UKDN AntiCode is primarily concerned with the "taking". And yes, they are indeed concepts which are poles apart.

The term "something constructive,and positive is put forward, to bring together ideas and cooperation between what used to be ''them and us'' " actually is a very good description of the existing Code of Practice launched just over a week ago. The Code which the AntiCoders reject outright and already wish to replace by one they have written for themselves, serving THEIR own self-defined interests and quite clearly not those of the archaeological resource and its long term conservation and study. Who actually is creating a "them and us" situation? Could we please discuss the Code and the UKDN AntiCode and not stoop yet again to personal and misleading comments of the nature of those above?

Paul Barford

[kevmar]

the archaeological resource and its long term conservation and study

I'm glad you realise Paul ,that the archaeological resource isn'tlong term,it's rapidly being destroyed by modern farming methods,
e.g machines,and chemicals,as well as annual disturbance.
I see what I do as a hobby,as being artifact rescue ,
the quicker these finite items are out of harms way,
recorded, and conserved,the better,
that's the opinion of most people that cares about our heritage and history.
Don't you?
km.

[kevmar]

the archaeological resource and its long term conservation and study

I'm glad you realise Paul ,that the archaeological resource isn'tlong term,it's rapidly being destroyed by modern farming methods,
e.g machines,and chemicals,as well as annual disturbance.
I see what I do as a hobby,as being artifact rescue ,
the quicker these finite items are out of harms way,
recorded, and conserved,the better,
that's the opinion of most people that cares about our heritage and history.
Don't you?
km.

[Paul Barford]

Well, I have no difficulty in seeing the archaeological resource as both finite and fragile, that is the starting point of my concern about what we as archaeologists allow to be done to it as ARM.
But with regard the old, old argument about "artefact rescue" [sigh], we and others have been through all this in great detail a number of times on Britarch and PAS and even though I see you still have not taken on board the points made in those discussions, I see no need to go over it all again here in a discussion on the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting. Oddly enough not even the UKDN AntiCode makes reference to this area of 'different responsibility' does it? Certainly artefact hunting on the UKDN AntiCode model has far less claim to be any kind of "artefact rescue" than that carried out in accordance with the existing Code of Practice.

Could we just keep on topic?

Paul Barford
.

[Paul Barford]

Well, I have no difficulty in seeing the archaeological resource as both finite and fragile, that is the starting point of my concern about what we as archaeologists allow to be done to it as ARM.
But with regard the old, old argument about "artefact rescue" [sigh], we and others have been through all this in great detail a number of times on Britarch and PAS and even though I see you still have not taken on board the points made in those discussions, I see no need to go over it all again here in a discussion on the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting. Oddly enough not even the UKDN AntiCode makes reference to this area of 'different responsibility' does it? Certainly artefact hunting on the UKDN AntiCode model has far less claim to be any kind of "artefact rescue" than that carried out in accordance with the existing Code of Practice.

Could we just keep on topic?

Paul Barford
.

[BAJR Host]

Can we stop calling this the AntiCode..

Can we try and keep answers short and try to minimise the 'quoting' and requoting'

Can we ALL remain on topic... and not digress onto either personal rants, personal problems with organisations, personal digs at others etc etc etc...

Do not let discussions on other threads spill onto others

Stay on topic or the post will be heavily edited.

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Can we stop calling this the AntiCode..

Can we try and keep answers short and try to minimise the 'quoting' and requoting'

Can we ALL remain on topic... and not digress onto either personal rants, personal problems with organisations, personal digs at others etc etc etc...

Do not let discussions on other threads spill onto others

Stay on topic or the post will be heavily edited.

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Can we stop calling this the AntiCode..

Can we try and keep answers short and try to minimise the 'quoting' and requoting'

Can we ALL remain on topic... and not digress onto either personal rants, personal problems with organisations, personal digs at others etc etc etc...

Do not let discussions on other threads spill onto others

Stay on topic or the post will be heavily edited.

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Can we stop calling this the AntiCode..

Can we try and keep answers short and try to minimise the 'quoting' and requoting'

Can we ALL remain on topic... and not digress onto either personal rants, personal problems with organisations, personal digs at others etc etc etc...

Do not let discussions on other threads spill onto others

Stay on topic or the post will be heavily edited.

Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

I did anticipate that Paul's very specific points would be answered emotively and non-specifically, which is precisely why I suggested a structured response or refutation on each one would be very welcome.

I still think so, since anything else won't lead to clarity, which I presume is what these discussions are intended to generate.

[Elgin]

I did anticipate that Paul's very specific points would be answered emotively and non-specifically, which is precisely why I suggested a structured response or refutation on each one would be very welcome.

I still think so, since anything else won't lead to clarity, which I presume is what these discussions are intended to generate.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
Can we stop calling this the AntiCode.. David, we have a Code and another document written in opposition which has no title. It needs some brief title to avoid confusion in any rational discussion of the content.
I proposed AntiCode because the detectorists who are proposing it on UKDN are "anti" the existing Code and want to create one in opposition to the one they dont want to accept. The term is analagous to thesis/antithesis - and seems approproiate because a close comparison between the two texts shows the UKDN text certainly is antithetic in a number of highly significant respects to what the CoP represents.
So, what do you want us to call it? It cannot be the UKDN Code of Practice since in its current form it obviously can only refer to England and Wales and not the whole of the UK. Also as the polling on UKDN indicates, its not the unanimous view of all members of that Forum. How would you like us to collectively refer to its authors and their literary product in future discussions on BAJR? What would its authors now propose as a title?

Paul Barford
.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
Can we stop calling this the AntiCode.. David, we have a Code and another document written in opposition which has no title. It needs some brief title to avoid confusion in any rational discussion of the content.
I proposed AntiCode because the detectorists who are proposing it on UKDN are "anti" the existing Code and want to create one in opposition to the one they dont want to accept. The term is analagous to thesis/antithesis - and seems approproiate because a close comparison between the two texts shows the UKDN text certainly is antithetic in a number of highly significant respects to what the CoP represents.
So, what do you want us to call it? It cannot be the UKDN Code of Practice since in its current form it obviously can only refer to England and Wales and not the whole of the UK. Also as the polling on UKDN indicates, its not the unanimous view of all members of that Forum. How would you like us to collectively refer to its authors and their literary product in future discussions on BAJR? What would its authors now propose as a title?

Paul Barford
.

[Paul Barford]

The prefix "anti" need not always have negative conotations, antibody, antifreeze, antidiuretic, anticathode and so on... it just refers to the dialectic. Anyway perhaps before discussing the UKDN text further it would be helpful to weork out what its called and what its "for". (I seem to have heard that one before)

Paul Barford

[Paul Barford]

The prefix "anti" need not always have negative conotations, antibody, antifreeze, antidiuretic, anticathode and so on... it just refers to the dialectic. Anyway perhaps before discussing the UKDN text further it would be helpful to weork out what its called and what its "for". (I seem to have heard that one before)

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

However on this Forum people will refer to it as the UKDN Code

and Nigel, do please join in with your structured suggestions or comments about either code....you can make positive comments as well as Paul.

;)



Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

However on this Forum people will refer to it as the UKDN Code

and Nigel, do please join in with your structured suggestions or comments about either code....you can make positive comments as well as Paul.

;)



Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
and Nigel, do please join in with your structured suggestions or comments about either code....you can make positive comments as well as Paul.;)
David, my comments, ready structured, are that Paul's 8 points are compelling.

I feel that it would be helpful if you commented upon them in detail since I find your general statement ....

"Actually think that a merged Code, with elements from both would be a briliant document... I would add a couple of words here and there... but you have to admit, its not too bad"

.... puzzling.
Could you explain how Paul's 8 points are wrong and why you have come to your contrary general conclusion?

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
and Nigel, do please join in with your structured suggestions or comments about either code....you can make positive comments as well as Paul.;)
David, my comments, ready structured, are that Paul's 8 points are compelling.

I feel that it would be helpful if you commented upon them in detail since I find your general statement ....

"Actually think that a merged Code, with elements from both would be a briliant document... I would add a couple of words here and there... but you have to admit, its not too bad"

.... puzzling.
Could you explain how Paul's 8 points are wrong and why you have come to your contrary general conclusion?

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

However on this Forum people will refer to it as the UKDN Code Hmmm. OK, if you say so. But does that reflect the wishes of the UKDN as a whole? Do all members of the UKDN wish to be associated by the BAJR archaeological community with the authors of this "code" and the sentiments expressed in it? Tarring everyone with the same brush seems a bit unfair on those who stand by their convictions and support the existing Code despite the prevailing mood of their fellow list members.

And do all the sponsors of UKDN wish to be associated in his way by default with this document and the ideas expressed in it (including those metal detector dealers who have now I understand declared to the PAS their support for the existing Code of Practice)?

Another point about the proposed name is that the text itself is not composed entirely by the UKDN. I'm not going to count words, but large portions of it are plagiarised from the text of an existing document, the intellectual property of an entirely different group of people with different aims. What is the meaning of this? Its not a "convergence of ideas" as Hosty suggested earlier, because the overall tone of the "UKDN" document is entirely opposed to the existing Code of Practice.

Also "UKDN Code" of what precisely? In order to discuss it and compare it with the existing Code of Practice, we need to know what it is actually "for". If it was not produced just to be "anti" the existing code (and those that promulgated and support it), what in fact is its purpose? You either subscribe to a Code of Practice or you do not, from that point of view a rival text is entirely unneccessary. This text presumably has a purpose, which should be apparent from the way it is entitled; "UKDN Code" says nothing. Can we have a clear and unambiguous statement from its authors about what this document is for and what we should be calling it please.


quote:
and Nigel, do please join in with your structured suggestions or comments about either code....you can make positive comments as well as Paul Just Nigel, or some of the archaeologists grouped on this Forum too?

Paul Barford.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

However on this Forum people will refer to it as the UKDN Code Hmmm. OK, if you say so. But does that reflect the wishes of the UKDN as a whole? Do all members of the UKDN wish to be associated by the BAJR archaeological community with the authors of this "code" and the sentiments expressed in it? Tarring everyone with the same brush seems a bit unfair on those who stand by their convictions and support the existing Code despite the prevailing mood of their fellow list members.

And do all the sponsors of UKDN wish to be associated in his way by default with this document and the ideas expressed in it (including those metal detector dealers who have now I understand declared to the PAS their support for the existing Code of Practice)?

Another point about the proposed name is that the text itself is not composed entirely by the UKDN. I'm not going to count words, but large portions of it are plagiarised from the text of an existing document, the intellectual property of an entirely different group of people with different aims. What is the meaning of this? Its not a "convergence of ideas" as Hosty suggested earlier, because the overall tone of the "UKDN" document is entirely opposed to the existing Code of Practice.

Also "UKDN Code" of what precisely? In order to discuss it and compare it with the existing Code of Practice, we need to know what it is actually "for". If it was not produced just to be "anti" the existing code (and those that promulgated and support it), what in fact is its purpose? You either subscribe to a Code of Practice or you do not, from that point of view a rival text is entirely unneccessary. This text presumably has a purpose, which should be apparent from the way it is entitled; "UKDN Code" says nothing. Can we have a clear and unambiguous statement from its authors about what this document is for and what we should be calling it please.


quote:
and Nigel, do please join in with your structured suggestions or comments about either code....you can make positive comments as well as Paul Just Nigel, or some of the archaeologists grouped on this Forum too?

Paul Barford.

[Steve-B]

quote: I'm not going to count words, but large portions of it are plagiarised from the text of an existing document, the intellectual property of an entirely different group of people with different aims.

As one of the contributors to the unfinished CBA CoP they have nmy permission to make use of the document as they wish....

The unfinished code was the intellecual property of who exactly Paul?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

quote: I'm not going to count words, but large portions of it are plagiarised from the text of an existing document, the intellectual property of an entirely different group of people with different aims.

As one of the contributors to the unfinished CBA CoP they have nmy permission to make use of the document as they wish....

The unfinished code was the intellecual property of who exactly Paul?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

My definition of tweaking - perhaps I should clarify… (first it is not the AntiCode.. neither is this discussion an AntiCode. I believe that a first important step has been taken, I also believe that there is room for improvement and inclusion of as many people as possible would be a good thing… You seem to think I am a champion of the UKDN code… a fundamental mistake, I think the current code needs clarifying, taking elements from discussion, and presenting that (this would be at odds with the UKDN – in part – but I find some of the wording useful)

So what you think or say about the UKDN code is for you to ask them? I am of the mind that taking several points of view - looking at what is good in them, looking at what is said in them… then presenting a sensible and structured response – including what defines Disturbed Ground… what is meant by strongly advised? How does that differ from just advised or recommended or suggested? As Paul says, this is a code… so why use terms such as advise? Surely this is not an advice document?

This is not a place to play word games… or present no useful comments.

What I would like to see here is not negative statements.. not… that’s crap… that’s no good…. I want to see…. I think that could be better… and this is how….

So…. If it is possible to return to the point….. I take it you would agree with nothing in the UKDN Code…. If so say so… and that’s it…. You don’t need to say any more… If you have nothing to say other than I don’t like it…. It only takes these words… point made… move on….

If you want to comment about the CoP go to that thread, say if you feel it is perfect of not, if not if not fine, …. If you have any suggestions about what might be a useful addition, say it…. Otherwise move on…


And yes Paul.... structured discussion is always welcome... discussion .... not preaching.


Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

My definition of tweaking - perhaps I should clarify… (first it is not the AntiCode.. neither is this discussion an AntiCode. I believe that a first important step has been taken, I also believe that there is room for improvement and inclusion of as many people as possible would be a good thing… You seem to think I am a champion of the UKDN code… a fundamental mistake, I think the current code needs clarifying, taking elements from discussion, and presenting that (this would be at odds with the UKDN – in part – but I find some of the wording useful)

So what you think or say about the UKDN code is for you to ask them? I am of the mind that taking several points of view - looking at what is good in them, looking at what is said in them… then presenting a sensible and structured response – including what defines Disturbed Ground… what is meant by strongly advised? How does that differ from just advised or recommended or suggested? As Paul says, this is a code… so why use terms such as advise? Surely this is not an advice document?

This is not a place to play word games… or present no useful comments.

What I would like to see here is not negative statements.. not… that’s crap… that’s no good…. I want to see…. I think that could be better… and this is how….

So…. If it is possible to return to the point….. I take it you would agree with nothing in the UKDN Code…. If so say so… and that’s it…. You don’t need to say any more… If you have nothing to say other than I don’t like it…. It only takes these words… point made… move on….

If you want to comment about the CoP go to that thread, say if you feel it is perfect of not, if not if not fine, …. If you have any suggestions about what might be a useful addition, say it…. Otherwise move on…


And yes Paul.... structured discussion is always welcome... discussion .... not preaching.


Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

As one of the contributors to the unfinished CBA CoP they have nmy permission to make use of the document as they wish....Steve, you cannot have it both ways, either you are a contributor of the existing CoP or you were "never consulted".

If we are going to have terminological rectitude enforced from above, can we have it established equally that the document from which the UKDN took this text is NOT the "CBA Code", and neither is it (now) unfinished.

Paul Barford

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

As one of the contributors to the unfinished CBA CoP they have nmy permission to make use of the document as they wish....Steve, you cannot have it both ways, either you are a contributor of the existing CoP or you were "never consulted".

If we are going to have terminological rectitude enforced from above, can we have it established equally that the document from which the UKDN took this text is NOT the "CBA Code", and neither is it (now) unfinished.

Paul Barford

[garybrun]

Just so that we can see what the original statement given out by the British Museum for reference.

quote:British Museum news release

Historic agreement on a first code of practice for metal detecting

2 May 2006

We are delighted to announce that a Code of Practice on Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales has been agreed by all key archaeological bodies and metal detecting and landowners' organisations. This is the first time that these bodies have joined together to precisely define responsible metal detecting and provides a clear and unambiguous definition of what constitutes good practice. The signatories are the National Council of Metal Detecting, the Federation of Independent Detectorists, the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union, the Council for British Archaeology, English Heritage, National Museums and Galleries of Wales, Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, The British Museum, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, the Society of Museum Archaeologists and the Royal Commission for the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales. The agreement is voluntary but has the full endorsement of the signatories and all parties are committed to ensuring its members abide by the advice set out in the document.

The agreement covers three aspects of metal detecting. The first section, ' Before you go metal-detecting', states you must obtain permission to search from the landowner, adhere to laws concerning protected sites, join an official metal-detecting club and follow conservation advice. 'Whilst you are detecting' states that findspots should be recorded as accurately as possible, that ground disturbance should be minimal and that the Country Code should be respected. Finally it offers advice on procedures after you have been detecting. Any and all finds should be reported to the landowner and the Portable Antiquities Scheme, detectorists must abide by the provisions of the Treasure Act and must seek expert help if they find something large or an object made from unusual material and that they must call the police if they discover any human remains.

It is hoped that the Code, alongside the Treasure Act legislation will ensure that situations like that at Wanborough where the site of a Romano-Celtic temple was decimated by unscrupulous treasure hunters will not happen again. There have been many cases, particularly recently, of responsible reporting of finds which have been of invaluable use to the archaeological record, the Ringlemere Gold Cup, the Winchester Hoard and the Staffordshire Moorlands Pan are but a few examples. The continuation of good relations between archaeologists, museums and metal detectorists as embodied by the Code will build on these examples and form the model for the future.

Dr Mike Heyworth, Director - Council for British Archaeology, commented:

"This Code represents a major step forward. It builds on earlier efforts to provide guidance to all users of metal detectors. It emphasises the positive contributions that responsible metal detectorists can make to the study of the past through the knowledge we can obtain from finds and their archaeological contexts. The Code also serves to emphasise the distinction between responsible metal detectorists and the minority of irresponsible individuals who use their equipment for personal gain".

Steve Critchley, Chairman - National Council for Metal-Detecting, said

"This Code is both fair and practical. By adhering to this Code the vast majority of metal-detectorists will be able to demonstrate that they have a genuine interest in the past and wish to benefit from the knowledge they gain from their hobby. The National Council for Metal Detecting will be replacing its exiting Code, a part of its Constitution, with the new one. Adherence to the Code when metal detecting is a condition of membership".

For further information please contact Hannah Boulton in the Press Office on 020 7323 8522 or [log in to unmask]

Notes to Editors:

The Code of Practice on Responsible Metal Detecting has been endorsed by the British Museum, the Council for British Archaeology, the Country Landowners and Business Association, English Heritage, the Federation of Independent Detectorists, the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council, the National Council for Metal Detecting, the National Farmers Union, the National Museum Wales, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales and the Society of Museum Archaeologists.

The Code is available online at: http://www.finds.org.uk/documents/CofP1.pdf

The Portable Antiquities Scheme is a voluntary scheme to record archaeological objects found by members of the public in England and Wales. Every year many thousands of objects are discovered, many of these by metal-detector users, but also by people whilst out walking, gardening or going about their daily work. Such discoveries offer an important source for understanding our past. The Scheme is run and administered from the British Museum. More information can be found on www.finds.org.uk

Contact: Michael Lewis 0207 323 8611

Mike Heyworth states:
"This Code represents a major step forward. It builds on earlier efforts to provide guidance to all users of metal detectors. It emphasises the positive contributions that responsible metal detectorists can make to the study of the past through the knowledge we can obtain from finds and their archaeological contexts. The Code also serves to emphasise the distinction between responsible metal detectorists and the minority of irresponsible individuals who use their equipment for personal gain".

I disagree that people who buy a metal detector are not irresponsible because they are looking for finds that they can also profit from.
If I spend £1200 on a machine I would also like to if possible get it to pay for itself. many do by selling their coins etc to collectors.
The main thing is that these finds are documented and recorded.
One of the main problems and up-roar about the code is that people have been classed as irresponsible because they don't record with the voluntary PAS system and the PAS system only. i also believe the COP is a deliberate attempt to side line other organizations who are involved in recording eg. UKDFD etc.

Back to what Mike said.
"The Code also serves to emphasize the distinction between responsible metal detectorists and the minority of irresponsible individuals who use their equipment for personal gain".

If this is the case... then there should be no treasure reward.
It like the British Museum is accusing detectorists of stealing but then fencing the goods and paying them for it. Also the detectorists who have declared their finds and received rewards are also classed as irresponsible. This is my beef with the COP put out buy the organizations who have signed up to the code above. It comes across as so hypocritical. In my opinion the PAS would like control of records and data that mainly metal detectorists collect. We all agree that this is the bread and butter for PAS... no finds no PAS and 8 million pounds thrown out of the window. This I can see why many professional jealousies have popped up within the archeological community. 8 million is a lot of money.

Later the UKDFD is established because a few archeologists (Paul Barford being one) would not recognize the good and contribution detectorists were making to the heritage. The same situation is happening again here.. the select few dissrupting proceedings. The PAS forum bears witness to the creation of UKDFD. So much damage was being done to the liaison between detectorists and PAS that people were not recording their finds. The UKDFD team stood up and created a system that would allow people to record their data, a system that in my opinion has an interface better than the PAS system.
The PAS system was built for academics but did not take on board the needs of the detectorist... the very people that gives their system life.

The UKDFD is going strong and has certainly given PAS a kick up the bum and made them do a very quick re-think on how their search engines work and how their data is structured.

Now few archeologists are running around like headless chickens because they can not control the data. The very people who have been accusing detectorists for being irresponsible and not recording finds, then also get their knickers in a twist because they begin to reach out to other hobbyists to get them to record their finds ... but also GIVE THEM A CHOICE. After all the system is voluntary which means free choice.

People do not have to sign up to COP but if they don’t they are classed as "irresponsible". If they dont record their finds with the PAS system they are classed as "irresponsible".
I have said many times that heritage belongs to all..
UKDFD uses the slogan "Recording our heritage for future generations".. this means it does not belong to select group of individuals who have studied archeology or have a position with the Britsh Museum.

Now Mr. Nigel Swift, Mr. Paul Barford and a few more of Britarch anti detecting brigade your ponds are drying up. Detectorists are responsible and are doing their bit for the heritage and the sad thing about this for you is there is nothing you can do about it.
The select few can scream and scream and make yourself sick but the systems are in place and are working and are successful and will continue to be so.
The British Museum/ PAS has stabbed itself in the foot and is trying to bandage up the mess with a COP. But its not going to work as all that is left is a festering wound that will take a long time to heal over. UKDN, UKDFD,MLO and others are doing what they believe to be responsible and protect the heritage. This should be applauded and not knocked by some at every opportunity nor should it also be ignored by organizations who in COP say they represent landowners, detectorists and all the other signatories’ they can muster.

PAS wants to dictate to a voluntary scheme.
I myself have used my choice to “voluntary record� other places where I know the data is safe and accurate. I will exercise my right to do this and will inform others of the systems that are in place the plus and the negatives. Before this COP was given out by PAS I personaly fully supported them and spread their gospel fo recording at every given opportunity. Now you brand me as "irresponcible".
The more you try and dictate the more people will rebel as history shows. Its very ironic that an organisation that was set up to study and record history can not see it repeating itself nor learn from the lessons it has been presented.

Here endeth the lesson.

Gary Brun


http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[garybrun]

Just so that we can see what the original statement given out by the British Museum for reference.

quote:British Museum news release

Historic agreement on a first code of practice for metal detecting

2 May 2006

We are delighted to announce that a Code of Practice on Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales has been agreed by all key archaeological bodies and metal detecting and landowners' organisations. This is the first time that these bodies have joined together to precisely define responsible metal detecting and provides a clear and unambiguous definition of what constitutes good practice. The signatories are the National Council of Metal Detecting, the Federation of Independent Detectorists, the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union, the Council for British Archaeology, English Heritage, National Museums and Galleries of Wales, Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, The British Museum, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, the Society of Museum Archaeologists and the Royal Commission for the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales. The agreement is voluntary but has the full endorsement of the signatories and all parties are committed to ensuring its members abide by the advice set out in the document.

The agreement covers three aspects of metal detecting. The first section, ' Before you go metal-detecting', states you must obtain permission to search from the landowner, adhere to laws concerning protected sites, join an official metal-detecting club and follow conservation advice. 'Whilst you are detecting' states that findspots should be recorded as accurately as possible, that ground disturbance should be minimal and that the Country Code should be respected. Finally it offers advice on procedures after you have been detecting. Any and all finds should be reported to the landowner and the Portable Antiquities Scheme, detectorists must abide by the provisions of the Treasure Act and must seek expert help if they find something large or an object made from unusual material and that they must call the police if they discover any human remains.

It is hoped that the Code, alongside the Treasure Act legislation will ensure that situations like that at Wanborough where the site of a Romano-Celtic temple was decimated by unscrupulous treasure hunters will not happen again. There have been many cases, particularly recently, of responsible reporting of finds which have been of invaluable use to the archaeological record, the Ringlemere Gold Cup, the Winchester Hoard and the Staffordshire Moorlands Pan are but a few examples. The continuation of good relations between archaeologists, museums and metal detectorists as embodied by the Code will build on these examples and form the model for the future.

Dr Mike Heyworth, Director - Council for British Archaeology, commented:

"This Code represents a major step forward. It builds on earlier efforts to provide guidance to all users of metal detectors. It emphasises the positive contributions that responsible metal detectorists can make to the study of the past through the knowledge we can obtain from finds and their archaeological contexts. The Code also serves to emphasise the distinction between responsible metal detectorists and the minority of irresponsible individuals who use their equipment for personal gain".

Steve Critchley, Chairman - National Council for Metal-Detecting, said

"This Code is both fair and practical. By adhering to this Code the vast majority of metal-detectorists will be able to demonstrate that they have a genuine interest in the past and wish to benefit from the knowledge they gain from their hobby. The National Council for Metal Detecting will be replacing its exiting Code, a part of its Constitution, with the new one. Adherence to the Code when metal detecting is a condition of membership".

For further information please contact Hannah Boulton in the Press Office on 020 7323 8522 or [log in to unmask]

Notes to Editors:

The Code of Practice on Responsible Metal Detecting has been endorsed by the British Museum, the Council for British Archaeology, the Country Landowners and Business Association, English Heritage, the Federation of Independent Detectorists, the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council, the National Council for Metal Detecting, the National Farmers Union, the National Museum Wales, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales and the Society of Museum Archaeologists.

The Code is available online at: http://www.finds.org.uk/documents/CofP1.pdf

The Portable Antiquities Scheme is a voluntary scheme to record archaeological objects found by members of the public in England and Wales. Every year many thousands of objects are discovered, many of these by metal-detector users, but also by people whilst out walking, gardening or going about their daily work. Such discoveries offer an important source for understanding our past. The Scheme is run and administered from the British Museum. More information can be found on www.finds.org.uk

Contact: Michael Lewis 0207 323 8611

Mike Heyworth states:
"This Code represents a major step forward. It builds on earlier efforts to provide guidance to all users of metal detectors. It emphasises the positive contributions that responsible metal detectorists can make to the study of the past through the knowledge we can obtain from finds and their archaeological contexts. The Code also serves to emphasise the distinction between responsible metal detectorists and the minority of irresponsible individuals who use their equipment for personal gain".

I disagree that people who buy a metal detector are not irresponsible because they are looking for finds that they can also profit from.
If I spend £1200 on a machine I would also like to if possible get it to pay for itself. many do by selling their coins etc to collectors.
The main thing is that these finds are documented and recorded.
One of the main problems and up-roar about the code is that people have been classed as irresponsible because they don't record with the voluntary PAS system and the PAS system only. i also believe the COP is a deliberate attempt to side line other organizations who are involved in recording eg. UKDFD etc.

Back to what Mike said.
"The Code also serves to emphasize the distinction between responsible metal detectorists and the minority of irresponsible individuals who use their equipment for personal gain".

If this is the case... then there should be no treasure reward.
It like the British Museum is accusing detectorists of stealing but then fencing the goods and paying them for it. Also the detectorists who have declared their finds and received rewards are also classed as irresponsible. This is my beef with the COP put out buy the organizations who have signed up to the code above. It comes across as so hypocritical. In my opinion the PAS would like control of records and data that mainly metal detectorists collect. We all agree that this is the bread and butter for PAS... no finds no PAS and 8 million pounds thrown out of the window. This I can see why many professional jealousies have popped up within the archeological community. 8 million is a lot of money.

Later the UKDFD is established because a few archeologists (Paul Barford being one) would not recognize the good and contribution detectorists were making to the heritage. The same situation is happening again here.. the select few dissrupting proceedings. The PAS forum bears witness to the creation of UKDFD. So much damage was being done to the liaison between detectorists and PAS that people were not recording their finds. The UKDFD team stood up and created a system that would allow people to record their data, a system that in my opinion has an interface better than the PAS system.
The PAS system was built for academics but did not take on board the needs of the detectorist... the very people that gives their system life.

The UKDFD is going strong and has certainly given PAS a kick up the bum and made them do a very quick re-think on how their search engines work and how their data is structured.

Now few archeologists are running around like headless chickens because they can not control the data. The very people who have been accusing detectorists for being irresponsible and not recording finds, then also get their knickers in a twist because they begin to reach out to other hobbyists to get them to record their finds ... but also GIVE THEM A CHOICE. After all the system is voluntary which means free choice.

People do not have to sign up to COP but if they don’t they are classed as "irresponsible". If they dont record their finds with the PAS system they are classed as "irresponsible".
I have said many times that heritage belongs to all..
UKDFD uses the slogan "Recording our heritage for future generations".. this means it does not belong to select group of individuals who have studied archeology or have a position with the Britsh Museum.

Now Mr. Nigel Swift, Mr. Paul Barford and a few more of Britarch anti detecting brigade your ponds are drying up. Detectorists are responsible and are doing their bit for the heritage and the sad thing about this for you is there is nothing you can do about it.
The select few can scream and scream and make yourself sick but the systems are in place and are working and are successful and will continue to be so.
The British Museum/ PAS has stabbed itself in the foot and is trying to bandage up the mess with a COP. But its not going to work as all that is left is a festering wound that will take a long time to heal over. UKDN, UKDFD,MLO and others are doing what they believe to be responsible and protect the heritage. This should be applauded and not knocked by some at every opportunity nor should it also be ignored by organizations who in COP say they represent landowners, detectorists and all the other signatories’ they can muster.

PAS wants to dictate to a voluntary scheme.
I myself have used my choice to “voluntary record� other places where I know the data is safe and accurate. I will exercise my right to do this and will inform others of the systems that are in place the plus and the negatives. Before this COP was given out by PAS I personaly fully supported them and spread their gospel fo recording at every given opportunity. Now you brand me as "irresponcible".
The more you try and dictate the more people will rebel as history shows. Its very ironic that an organisation that was set up to study and record history can not see it repeating itself nor learn from the lessons it has been presented.

Here endeth the lesson.

Gary Brun


http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[Steve-B]

quote:Steve, you cannot have it both ways, either you are a contributor of the existing CoP or you were "never consulted".

If we are going to have terminological rectitude enforced from above, can we have it established equally that the document from which the UKDN took this text is NOT the "CBA Code", and neither is it (now) unfinished.

Paul Barford

Splitting hairs again Paul!

I was indeed a contributor to the orginal code on the PASF.

I was never consulted much later when it was decided that this code should be used as a basis for general adoption.

I do consider that the code both in its PASF state and now in its released state was never finished...

if you do, then why are you discussing it?

By the way...very well said Gary....

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

quote:Steve, you cannot have it both ways, either you are a contributor of the existing CoP or you were "never consulted".

If we are going to have terminological rectitude enforced from above, can we have it established equally that the document from which the UKDN took this text is NOT the "CBA Code", and neither is it (now) unfinished.

Paul Barford

Splitting hairs again Paul!

I was indeed a contributor to the orginal code on the PASF.

I was never consulted much later when it was decided that this code should be used as a basis for general adoption.

I do consider that the code both in its PASF state and now in its released state was never finished...

if you do, then why are you discussing it?

By the way...very well said Gary....

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

Agree, very well argued gary. I read the whole posting with interest, even If I did disagree with some points...

I do however think that that just about sums it up...

I would however prefer that any revised code is part of the whole, where it will retain credability by everyone. Farmers might get very confused about whose doing what!

I do still wonder what happened between discussion and adoption...

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Agree, very well argued gary. I read the whole posting with interest, even If I did disagree with some points...

I do however think that that just about sums it up...

I would however prefer that any revised code is part of the whole, where it will retain credability by everyone. Farmers might get very confused about whose doing what!

I do still wonder what happened between discussion and adoption...

Another day another WSI…

[Toby]

forum

/form/

• noun (pl. forums) 1 a meeting or medium for an exchange of views. 2 chiefly N. Amer. a court or tribunal. 3 (pl. fora) (in ancient Roman cities) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.

[Toby]

forum

/form/

• noun (pl. forums) 1 a meeting or medium for an exchange of views. 2 chiefly N. Amer. a court or tribunal. 3 (pl. fora) (in ancient Roman cities) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.

[BAJR Host]

Thanks toby, thats a good sensible posting.

I too would feel that a bit more work would be needed (though I do like the inclusion of battlefield sites... something which has been of major concern in the past... especialyy as much of the information comes from topsoil) -


Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Thanks toby, thats a good sensible posting.

I too would feel that a bit more work would be needed (though I do like the inclusion of battlefield sites... something which has been of major concern in the past... especialyy as much of the information comes from topsoil) -


Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

I am not sure I understand your "NA". Do you mean "Not Applicable", and if so, to what?

[Paul Barford]

I am not sure I understand your "NA". Do you mean "Not Applicable", and if so, to what?

[Toby]

forum

/form/

• noun (pl. forums) 1 a meeting or medium for an exchange of views. 2 chiefly N. Amer. a court or tribunal. 3 (pl. fora) (in ancient Roman cities) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.

[Paul Barford]

Thanks for the clarification Toby.