detectorists CoP section 4

[Sheddy]

Just so it doesn't get lost in the melee of the original thread, I'll post my reply to Hosty here. Hope you don't mind.

4. Familiarising yourself with and following current conservation advice on the handling,
care and storage of archaeological objects (see www.finds.org.uk).

No problem with this one either. There is some excellent advice on the stated website and a very good reccomended reading section.

[BAJR Host]

fab

anyone else for clause 4?



Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

fab

anyone else for clause 4?



Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

The UKDN untitled AntiCode has:
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. Why was this changed? Who is going to pay for this "specialist advice"? Do artefact hunters and collectors expect to get it free, especially if it turns out the answer is actually to be found in the documentation produced at public expense and provided by the PAS, but to which reference is for some reason omitted here? Instead of applying current methods codified in the PAS texts, the AntiCode detectorist is encouraged to self-determine the "appropriate" methods of cleaning - such as perhaps those tumbling machines with steel shapes we see being offered by detector dealers. Again the AntiCode detectoriost is given considerable leeway in their interpretation of the text of the "code" they have written for themselves in place of something that was defined as a specific responsibility in the existing Code.
If something in the PAS finds conservation guide is unclear or thought inappropriate, detectorists should be placing pressure on the PAS and YAT (its authors) to put it right (to keep it "current") rather than trying to bypass it by writing an alternate CoP.

Paul Barford
.

[Paul Barford]

The UKDN untitled AntiCode has:
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. Why was this changed? Who is going to pay for this "specialist advice"? Do artefact hunters and collectors expect to get it free, especially if it turns out the answer is actually to be found in the documentation produced at public expense and provided by the PAS, but to which reference is for some reason omitted here? Instead of applying current methods codified in the PAS texts, the AntiCode detectorist is encouraged to self-determine the "appropriate" methods of cleaning - such as perhaps those tumbling machines with steel shapes we see being offered by detector dealers. Again the AntiCode detectoriost is given considerable leeway in their interpretation of the text of the "code" they have written for themselves in place of something that was defined as a specific responsibility in the existing Code.
If something in the PAS finds conservation guide is unclear or thought inappropriate, detectorists should be placing pressure on the PAS and YAT (its authors) to put it right (to keep it "current") rather than trying to bypass it by writing an alternate CoP.

Paul Barford
.