Clause 6

[Sheddy]

6. Minimising any ground disturbance through the use of suitable tools and by reinstating any excavated material as neatly as possible. Endeavour not to damage stratified archaeological deposits.

No problem with this, in fact all the detecting shops I have used carry a good range of digging implements. I have never seen a newbie being given any advice that contradicts this clause, they have always been told to use someting along the lines of an Ada long handled trowel and the conversatio generally proceeds onto how to pinpoint and retrieve targets cleanly and with minimal risk to the object.

I have never met a detectorist who thinks digging a big hole and then not refilling it is a good idea.

The part about "Endeavour not to damage stratified archaeological deposits" brings us back to education.

[BAJR Host]

Yup... I think here we need something that illustrates it better than a picture of a be-shorted detectorist digging into a grave.. .... no laughing now!.... have to say that if that was real the skelly would be very very disarticulated by now.
http://www.scottisharchaeology.org.uk/advice/downloads/an8.pdf

I am great friends with the CSA, but this is a case in point where the images are quite er.....er.... non educational.:D

So thats another short section up for discussion... educating archaeoloigsts about the norm in detecting and use of tools... educating detectorists about recognising stratigraphy...



Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

I did try introducing the members on here as to how detectors work, explaining the features etc... the thread went boobs up, is there anyway that the relevant posts can be extricated from the thread and reposted again?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

Yes it can... in fact that part will form part of the new 'guide' appendix' 'discourse' ...whatever.

Another day another WSI…

[mercenary]

Steve-B,

In that you succeeded. I personally learnt a lot about common practice in metal detecting. The thread went tits-up when the seemingly inevitable personal infighting began.

[Steve-B]

I know... apologies for my part in it...

Well Hosty has now thankfully posted them up again, perhaps I and the other detectorists can add to these now.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

Thanks to Steve for putting up these in the first place... look forward to including thee in the final 'Guide' - which I will of course be sending out to anyone who wants to comment(he adds quickly)



Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Yup... I think here we need something that illustrates it better than a picture of a be-shorted detectorist digging into a grave.. .... no laughing now!.... have to say that if that was real the skelly would be very very disarticulated by now.
http://www.scottisharchaeology.org.uk/advice/downloads/an8.pdf I am great friends with the CSA, but this is a case in point where the images are quite er.....er.... non educational.:D
Errrrr... in what way? This picture goes with the text above it and graphically illustrates the negative effects of the detector-led removal of artefacts from stratified deposits below plough level. What could be clearer? I think its a pretty good illustration of the reasons for the concern. Its not just the potential for the "skelly" to be "disarticulated" by having a hole dug through it 'blind' (though in fact you will see that since the metal object was high in the fill, the detectorist cannot see its a grave the object was taken from). More importantly the shiny metal object which has been reovered is separated from its context in the ground and as part of an assemblage...
Its a clear message that whatever "tools" you use to dig the object out or how many photos the detectorist (whether or not they've been "educated") may take of the hole, the detectorist clearly cannot see or record the context it has come from under such conditions. THAT is surely the point the drawing is supposed to be making. And to my mind it makes it very well.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

If you could show me one real example of such a burial...

Having just dealt with 2 cemetaries (on a long cist cemetary of 3-600 graves, and another a bronze age cremation field... the illustration shows a scene that could neve ever ever exist in real life.. only in cartoon form...

My point is that instead of producing illustrations such as those, which are clearly impossible.. why not credit people with some intelligence and show a real situation.. (which is what the BAJR guide will show) - Reality rather than cartoon impossible. Don't even get me started on the Historic Scotland leaflet for farmers, which shows (actually it turne out to be an inspector---as they never thought to ask a detectorist) carrying a detector at knee height (WRONG) in long grass (WRONG) with the coil on backwards (WRONG)

If you saw a picture of a pretend archaeologist using a gardening trowel to excavate and a pickaxe being used to excavate a pot... I think you too would go.... hang on.... thats not right...

I would suggest replacing these with more factually correct, realistic scenes - thats all.





Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

Good grief... this is turning into the twilight zone...

If my drawing skills were up to it, I could quite easily draw a picture of an archaeologist troweling babies to death... doesnt mean it is true...

That is the worst kind of propoganda... shame, sham and shambles...

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

And that would an end to my weekend hobby ;)

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I would suggest replacing these with more factually correct, realistic scenes - thats all. I really do not understand what you are talking about. "the illustration shows a scene that could neve ever ever exist in real life.. only in cartoon form...", yes its a diagram, so what? Why cannot this "exist in real life"? An inhumation ssurviving below ploughsoil? Show you a real burial that looks like a cartoon? This cartoon? I'm really not at all following this. A burial with a brooch taken out of the upper grave fill by a detectorist? Yes, Cumwhitton to quote just one well-known case.

"If you saw a picture of a pretend archaeologist using a gardening trowel to excavate and a pickaxe being used to excavate a pot... I think you too would go.... hang on.... thats not right...", yes I would. But then, this may well be the reaction such a didactic diagram was intending to provoke - "hang on this is not right, they should not be excavating like that". Which is what the diagram of the detectorist digging stuff out from below plough level is clearly intended to do.
I do not see why it is not "educational" because they have used a diagram to explain something which would be difficult to show in the same way with a single photograph of a real situation. Lots of educational material uses diagrammes.

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

That is the worst kind of propoganda... shame, sham and shambles... . If you look at the text you will see it's an advice sheet about good practice in detecting on farmland. The diagram is intended to show the reader what is NOT "good practice" and why. No propaganda, but like the CoP helping to set standards.


Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Or if you listen to the Oxford Archaeology North archaeologist who led the team who excavated there..


quote:The result was the recording of the base of Adams’ original pit just cutting into the top of the grave. ‘Our feeling was very strong’, says Lupton, ‘that the brooches had been moved from their original location by ploughing and were in the topsoil directly above undisturbed grave fill’. They found other artefacts, ‘almost certainly from that grave’, spread further away: excavation clearly showed the upper part of the grave had been disturbed by ploughing.

ie... the grave was disturbed by ploughing,

I don't want to argue about this... all I am saying is a more accurate and educational diagram/cartoon that represents reality... rather than this example which represents a rather emotive picture...

As you say...it is a diagram which in its simplicity intends to say... hey... this is not right I should be careful not to excavate beneath plough soil... but in reality (intended or not) shows detectoists in a negative light, pulling a golden cross out of a sealed grave.

Just like the reality of the archaeologist is not indiana jones, this is not thre reality of detectorist activity.... all that is required is another illustration... blimey!


Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

in reality (intended or not) shows detectoists in a negative light, pulling a golden cross out of a sealed grave. Hmmm, it depicts [u]irresponsible detecting</u> which is what we all want to differentiate from the responsible kind (...which is why we were encouraging our MD friends here to subscribe to a CoP which says "I do not hold with guys that do this..." and is the message of the advice sheet from which the diagram comes). Would it have made it easier for you to accept the diagram if the background had been shaded black? :D

Paul Barford

[kevmar]

Why black paul?
Please explain.....

[BAJR Host]

it depicts impossible detecting and impossible archaeology

Even the example of Cumwhitton was shown to prove that...

surely it is better to show a real example?

have you also looked at this?

quote:http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/revised_metal_detecting.pdf
surely it would be better to show a real (instead of fake example?)

lets show some respect, and then ask for it in return??

not much to ask... unless you also believe in the De Vinci Code, the Holy Blood, that Roswell film....etc...etc

;)

Another day another WSI�

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

it depicts impossible detecting and impossible archaeology ;)
Well, I really do not see what is "impossible" about an inhumation just under ploughsoil with a pottery vessel and metal personal ornaments, Dark Age and Roman cemeteries are full of them, I've excavated a number myself. As for "impossible detecting", I really do wonder on what basis you say this... I really do. Not so many threads away there is this:
quote:[i]Originally posted by Sheddy

There is no way I would stop digging a signal if it went below the level of the plough [...] If an area is of archaeological importance then it would be scheduled. If its not scheduled and the arckys don't want us to dig there, then schedule it.
http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=686

"surely it is better to show a real example?" Well you take a photo of a real hole dug in a real archaeological feature by a real detectorist which shows it with the same clarity and put it in your BAJR Guide. That surely would "point the finger" more than a cartoon. I see nothing wrong with the diagram.

[BAJR Host]

I take it you have dropped the example of the Cumwhitton, when it did not fit with your theory... as to a photo... I think a real illustration would be better.. and I would love to see the burials that look like that...

Have you really dug burials like that? ;)



Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I take it you have dropped the example of the Cumwhitton, when it did not fit with your theory... What "theory"? I only did not expand on it because you said you did not want to discuss it !! Mike Pitts' BA article written after the event explains nothing, merely provides yet another version of the circumstances of discovery. Cf http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba79/feat3.shtml
I'd be perfectly happy to reiterate the problem of the discrepancy between what was fed to the news to make an inspirational story and the finder's own account (which I STILL see no reason to disbelieve), though that would be getting off the topic of the wording of CoP clause 6.

[quote]Originally posted by BAJR HostHave you really dug burials like that? ;) Not with a spade no. As for the way the diagram is drawn, why not take it up with Mike Middleton and tell him he does not know what he's doing? Its not up to me to defend his work against your criticisms. I think the diagram and text make a valid point well, you obviously dont. Let's get back to Clause six.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Mike is a personal friend, so I will.

Why must you disagree with every simple thing, where all I want is to see an illustration that accurately depicts events, rather than portraying a worse case senario that is archaeologically impossibe. If a burial was in the ground at that depth, it would be disturbed by the plough. I am not disagreeing with the portrayal of topsoil, subsoil, context, but (like the HS leaflet) when an archaeologist depicts something that they obviously don't know about, it is wrong... plain and simple - it shows a lack of respect, one which we would not accept ourselves, so I don't see why we should do it to others. Perhaps the depiction of amateur archaeologists in wooly hats and plus fours holding pick axes would not offend them either :D

The concept is education in a realistic and non patronising way... thats the bottom line

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

Absolutely, but also one which is also easily understandable to all. There, I've agreed with you, happy?

[BAJR Host]

:D We have agreed together... which is lovely... must be the sunshine outside my window :D

I also agree with you that it has to make a point clearly, you agree with me that the point should be slightly more realistic.

Now as you said.... where were we.

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

quote:Now as you said.... where were we.

Troweling babies to death?.....:D

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

That's it... silly of me to lose the thread..:D

Another day another WSI…

[Corinne Mills]

The Scottisharchaeology.org pdf file at least states do not dig below the plough soil - and specifies absolutely no deeper than 300mm

I take it this document is aimed at landowners? Do they supply one for detectorists David?

Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ourpasthistory.com/md/indexa.htm

[BAJR Host]

nope... and neither do Historic Scotland

when questioned they said... these leaflets are for landowners only...

Another day another WSI…