Clause 9

[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.

[Paul Barford]

I think, Toby, one has to read clause nine with the rest, this cannot be a "pick and mix" compliance, a detectorist either subscribes to the principles as a whole or does not.
I see no problem with reminding the finder of what Clause 1 should entail, and see no contradiction.
"Personally I would have made this tighter in wording and insist that all finda are reported." But it says "any finds" - how do you read this? "Any" is surely inclusive. The word "find" reflects archaeological parlance and is admittedly vague (though perhaps this is deliberate on the part of the authors as this is a Code laying down general principles rather than detailing their application in specific cases). In one sense, one could take it to mean "all things found in the field with the detector", so it could be old bits of agricultural equipment, nuts and bolts fallen off old tractors, coke can ring pulls. On the other, it can mean those things we call "archaeological finds". So I think we can agree that ring pulls and nuts and bolts can safely be not taken to the FLO without betraying the principles of the CoP, but what about the rest? The difficulty is more apparent than real, the PAS has however at various times clarified what kinds of material it is interested in seeing, and, as you say, the detectorist co-operating with the Scheme will become acquinted with these data collection policies. The BAJR guidelines can refer the user to places where such information canbe found.

I think, Toby, you are muddling the concepts of "recording" and "reporting", but that's a matter for discussion under clause seven (I think the topic was locked yesterday though).

But, as you say, the key point which the CoP stresses is to go through the PAS which is dedicated to doing the outreach to detectorists which among other things will help them to make informed decisions on what to record and how to avoid removing without useful record any potential archaeological evidence from the sites on which they detect. Other forms of reporting bypassing PAS outreach are discouraged by this text. Policies and institutions have been set up to liaise with detecorists and channel their work into a form useful to everybody, this is where the thinking and resorces towards these aims are currently chanelled; the CoP is an integral part of those policies of outreach and co-oeration. It stresses that responsible behaviour is to do metal detecting and artefact collection in full co-operation with those national and co-ordinated policies and institutions. Otherwise we return to the unco-ordinated free-for-all of the 1970s and 1980s in which much information was lost and sites damaged without record.

Paul Barford

[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]

quote:Originally posted by Toby

To clarify re finds - my personal opinion would that there would be no option of reporting. You detect/record/report or you do not detect. But that is my opinion.
That is the way I read the CoP too. This would mean that recording without reporting through the chanels set up to deal with this is not doing detecting the responsible way according to the CoP. The unarchived material in scattered private databases could so easily get lost or separated, and until it is made available canot be used by anyone except the individual finder/collector. And I think, reading the above threads, this is one of the primary problems for those detectorists who want to reject the present wording and definition of responsible detecting.

Paul Barford

Paul Barford

[Elgin]

I agree with both Toby and Paul about the intended meaning, and that there are very good reasons for it to say what it does.

[BAJR Host]

However the document is clear it is a voluntary code.

Now whether I, you or anyone else want to record/report, it is up to them.

My personal view is that recording is important. the reporting should be in a way that allows the information that has been recorded to be 'preserved' for future research and availability... how that is done however. ;) more than one way to skin a cat.

I do however think that most detectorists know what is worth taking to their FLOs or similar, I am impressed at the knowledge available. I also know that nobody can know everything, so it is safer to have a 'second opinion', as one mans scrap is another's important artefact.

In a way the same is very true of archaeological sites, where the industrial archaeology is dismissed as recent to get down to med or roman, while another might spend the time in the industrial deposits.

Reporting is not compulsary, but as Toby says as do many detectorists, a two way, educational, give and take attitude will lead to more reporting.

Choice One:
YOU WILL REPORT or ELSE.. result... backs to the wall, make me... don't tell me what to do....


Choice Two:
If you report, then this is what the benefit is, and by the way, there is an area over there that could benefit from a detecting, and as you report and record then we have no problem with you doing it their... Thats not important, but that is, .... oh I never realised that Dandy buttons of that type were only from 1760s... sharing information and trust... etc

I know both examples are hypothetical... and I could be accused of living in cloud cookoo however I do know one thing... Order some one and they resent it... work with someone as an equal and respect is the outcome.

I would go down the Choice 2 route...

I will say it clearly, once and for all..
I agree with the essence of the CoP
I understand how difficult it has been to even create this CoP
I think that some terms and clauses need clarification and expanding
I realise this is a short A4 document, with not much room for this
I realise it should not be a 2 volume tome, and is guidance not advice.
I think the BAJR commentary will be useful in clarifying, but will not attempt to alter the CoP.
We get better results when we work together rather than letting dogma rule. I can be swayed, my mind turned by persuasive arguement... so paisleyesqe No Surrender attitudes are not for here... ;)



Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

The wording was quite specific on this point to make it VERY clear that all items found on the land (with the exception of 'Treasure') belong to the Landowner. The Landowner has first say on what should be done with any items found there, which was one of the issues some people had a problem with.

[Steve-B]

Super post Hosty, echos my sentiments too...

You are right, there is more than one too skin a cat, the saying 'slowly, slowly, catchee monkey' also springs to mind...

Education, familiarisation, enthusiam and comitment, these are the qualities that will prevail..

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Corinne Mills]

The reason I joined a MD club was to have the resource of the FLO there to enable to to record my finds easily - for no other reason

Less than 10% of the detectorists at the 2 clubs I attend record their finds with PAS and are not actively encouraged to record by the club - in one the advice is if you are going to record to do it to parish only

Is that a normal percentage and advice in most clubs?

Both clubs are ncmd affiliated

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

[BAJR Host]

agreed...

I would like to hear more about the problem with this clause... as a deeper understanding of the issues raised during the creation of the CoP, could help in explaining the reasoning behind having clause 7 supporting clause 9 unless cluase 1 in which case there was no need for clause 7 or 9, or infact the rest, because if clause 9 does not allow for cluase 7 then clause 1 would ahve never happened, becasue if clause 9 does not allow reporting, then clause 7 recording ..............aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (being deliberately daft... ;).)

point being.... could you (john) explain more about the clause and what was wanted by signatories? and why it became a sticky point.

This would explain why some of the clause looks like a Frankenstein Monster (in the nicest way :) ) with each person putting in a different word. [?]

Another day another WSI…

[Corinne Mills]

quote:Originally posted by john1504

The wording was quite specific on this point to make it VERY clear that all items found on the land (with the exception of 'Treasure') belong to the Landowner. The Landowner has first say on what should be done with any items found there, which was one of the issues some people had a problem with.





Is this because a large number of detectorists do not show what they find to the landowner?

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

[Steve-B]

quote:The reason I joined a MD club was to have the resource of the FLO there to enable to to record my finds easily - for no other reason

Less than 10% of the detectorists at the 2 clubs I attend record their finds with PAS and are not actively encouraged to record by the club - in one the advice is if you are going to record to do it to parish only

Is that a normal percentage and advice in most clubs?

Both clubs are ncmd affiliated

Co, I think this demonstrates my point on an earlier clause where it is strongly recommended to join a club... I read you above poost and can only ask why?



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Corinne Mills]

I agree regarding the ones I attend Steve - from reading others posts elsewhere other clubs do seem really on the ball and actively promote responsible detecting

I think unless all ncmd affiliated clubs are required to operate to a "standard" and sing from the same hymn sheet there will always be this type of thing

I havent been to an independant club so cant comment on them

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

[Steve-B]

Fair enough Co.... dont want to labour the point as it is off topic here..



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Ironduke]

One problem with detecting clubs is that once one gets into metal detecting you've usually got the bug for life and therefore people rarely leave clubs and with restrictive membership it can make it hard for people new to the hobby to get accepted into a club and obviously will potentially miss out on the above mentioned benefits.

[Elgin]

As i understand it, the point of these discussions is the meaning of the CoP and whether its clear.

On that basis I'd say the CoP gives a single very clear opinion that to detect responsibly means reporting all finds to PAS. Suggesting alternatives to that is up to anyone who wants, but doing so is not "explaining" the CoP or the intentions of the signatories. It's extending them beyond what they are.

[Corinne Mills]

The only amendment /addition I would like to see is that post 1700 /scatters finds should be recorded with the HER (I.e. the ones PAS are not interested in recording)

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

[BAJR Host]

Just as well BAJR is not suggesting an alternative then... ;)



Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

mm,I think it also interesting to note that even some archaeologists would prefer the information to go direct to the HER.

The PAS is one avenue for recording (arguable the first port of call for many) but I dont think it should be proposed as the only course open.

It is not right that any finder should be forced to record with the PAS or be considered irresponsible.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Elgin]

quote:[i]The PAS is one avenue for recording (arguable the first port of call for many) but I dont think it should be proposed as the only course open.

It is not right that any finder should be forced to record with the PAS or be considered irresponsible.
It's your prerogative to think the CoP is wrong and to propose something different Steve, but not within something intended to be seen as an "interpretative guide to the CoP" surely?

What is the aim of these discussions - an interpretative guide and explanation of what the CoP says or a document that also includes things that contrast with what the CoP says? I thought it was the former but if its the latter perhaps it should be billed as such.

[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.

[Steve-B]

Toby, my post was not a criticism of PAS at all.

I promote them through my shop quite heavily and have invited my local FLO to a small rally that I am organising.

However, not all HERs are signed up to data transfers with PAS and as such are not getting the inoformation directed to them, some of it could be vital in planning.

I d nt propose bypassing PAS, but the wording of the CoP suggest that I would not be acting in a responsible manner if I decided to get direct the HER or the CCI for example.

More thought could hav been given to this part of the CoP.

Nigel any guide that Badger intends to produce would be amiss if it dis not hold a comprehensive list of recording databases.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B


However, not all HERs are signed up to data transfers with PAS and as such are not getting the inoformation directed to them, some of it could be vital in planning.


I just thought you'd like to know Steve that all the major HER's have now signed up for the data transfer, and the majority of the 'lesser' HERs have done so too.

[Steve-B]

Thanks for the update John, however I still dont see that this changes the fact that to record direct with them is considered irresponsible, especially as some HERs would prefer direct input, as do some detectorists.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Nigel any guide that Badger intends to produce would be amiss if it dis not hold a comprehensive list of recording databases.

But by exactly the same token Steve, any explanatory guide to the CoP - which I can only repeat I thought was the purpose of these discussions - would be remiss if it contained anything other than an explanation of the signatories intentions wouldn't it? Seems that way to me.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

...some HERs would prefer direct input...

Do you happen to know which HERs prefer direct input? Nothing has been mentioned, that I know of, about HERs being unwilling to sign up to the data transfer.

[Steve-B]

If thats the case then it sems a pretty pointless discussion to me. I was under the impression that an exapnsion would be inclusive in any forthcoming BAJR guide and that we were also discussing the merits and shortcomings of the particular clauses.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

If thats the case then it sems a pretty pointless discussion to me. I was under the impression that an exapnsion would be inclusive in any forthcoming BAJR guide and that we were also discussing the merits and shortcomings of the particular clauses.
What, that when the CoP says responsible detecting means reporting to PAS the explanation would say it's actually alright to do otherwise? That would be strange situation. When did you get that impression. I must say I got the reverse.

[BAJR Host]

Nigel - I know you are firmly in a position you will not move from.. or can you be persuaded ?


but


quote:which I can only repeat I thought was the purpose of these discussions - would be remiss if it contained anything other than an explanation of the signatories intentions wouldn't it? Seems that way to me.

DO you actually know what the intentions of the signatories are? Have you talkedto them, or are you just assuming? Have you made contact with any of them directly?

I have and am continuing to do so... only through full knowledge can a wise man talk.

I feel a BAJR Guide will be useful (as the other Guides are)-

perhaps you could comment on it once its done.

On a different note.. would Heritage Action care to write a Guide?

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

Hosty, can you explain to me what you envisage the guide being please.

Is it going to be a blinkered document as Nigel et al would have or will it be something with a wider and more useful purpose, such as geting people to think further than what they currently do and told to do?

If it is to be a guide merely to expand on the CBA CoP is this not going to be sen as nothing more than establishment bureaucracy and a printed version of Nigel and Pauls mantra?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Is it going to be a blinkered document as Nigel et al would have or will it be something with a wider and more useful purpose, such as geting people to think further than what they currently do and told to do? If it is to be a guide merely to expand on the CBA CoP is this not going to be sen as nothing more than establishment bureaucracy and a printed version of Nigel and Pauls mantra? Steve, you alternate between accusing others of using negative terminology in order to "inflame", but then doing the same yourself. Terms like "blinkered" and "Nigel and Paul's mantra", "establishment bureaucracy" seem intended to do this (Hosty?)

This alleged "mantra" is nothing more nor less than supporting the idea of having a code which embodies a definition of responsible detecting - something you claim also to do.

As for whether it is "blinkered" to produce a BAJR Guide to the wording of the CoP .... David himself earlier wrote here http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=699&whichpage=4
“The discussion here is not about the UKDN CoP it is about the current one... we are looking at each clause, discussing where confusion may or may not arise, where further description may be useful...� Is that idea "blinkered" according to you?

For example if the CoP had said something like "Being responsible means avoiding accidental injury by being visible in the field to agricultural machinery drivers and other users of the countryside by wearing the officially recognised fluorescent pink nylon shorts" would it be helpful to point out that pink does not suit some detectorists and they prefer to stick to navy blue ones and others prefer camoflage dress? I would have thought in such a hypothetical situation the BAJR user's guide would explain the advantages of having your position identifiable to the shotgun brigade and sleepy tractor drivers on a morning as misty as today's (here).

But the CoP does not involve anything like this, it contains thirteen simple points which define what a whole group of people will accept as "responsoible detecting". This is not the "blinkered vision" of two guys as you try to characterise it, its got the backing of a whole lot of people. Why would BAJR and a group of detectorists go out of their way to present anything totally different? Why not just stick to what is written and clarify any misunderstandings there may be about it?

Paul Barford
.

[BAJR Host]

Glad to see you can spot where poorly chosen words can 'inflame' Paul, the only one I would take exception with is blinkered, as the rest seem to be quite accurate. You and Nigel have an oft repeated point of view, unchanging unswerving, unchallengeable. Don't even get me started on establishment bureaucracy - as it is quite true - I am in the fortunate position to be outside that, and can act quicker and directly.

But yes, blinkered has derogatory connotations and should not be used.B)

So what do you do?

I should remind people that if they feel the AUP has been breached, it is an off list matter to start. Please do not then return with posts that are retaliatory..

I am taking it that you feel BAJR should not be interfering on writing any accompanying document? Or am I just reading you wrong. IF you feel the CoP is simple and 100% fine, then you need not discuss any further…… you will have made your point and position clear.

As long as you discuss, there is an obvious need for discussion
;)

Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

David, the basic issue is this I believe.

The CoP says responsible detecting means reporting all finds to PAS.
Will the BAJR guide say there is a responsible alternative?

If so, it won’t be a commentary or explanation or guide to the CoP it will be something totally different to the CoP.

Is it not reasonable to enquire which is intended?

[BAJR Host]

It is indeed good to inquire...

I suspect people always like to know whats going to be in a document before it comes out.......

after all if it's going to affect you, it would be good. ...

I'm off to an SMR technical Forum meeting just now ... I guess when you work in the subject that you are talking about, it helps me understand the discussions at a deeper level.. such as HER/SMR compliance and PAS sustainability with data transfer... (have to confess it is pretty dull stuff)


Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I guess when you work in the subject that you are talking about, it helps me understand the discussions at a deeper level..

Hmmm. I think pulling archaeological rank against me is a bit inappropriate. I presume this isn’t an archaeologists-only discussion? Nor an archaeologists and detectorists only one? Are members of the public allowed any say at all in the fate of their resource? After all, as you say about the BAJR guide “if it's going to affect you� it would be good to know about it, and it IS going to affect them quite profoundly, isn’t it?

Incidentally, untutored and ill-experienced in this whole subject though I may be, I have reported finds so I suppose I, in turn, could pull rank on all those who haven’t.

Not that I would. Particularly since the question I posed is one about logic, not archaeology. It’s a very important question that Steve has also quite properly posed.

“It is indeed good to inquire� is an unfortunate response.

[BAJR Host]

Hey, whose pulling rank, I am just letting you know where I am off to, and how it can help me understand the full situation... you're very touchy Nigel.. lighten up :)

I have no need to pull rank on anyone....

I am also agreeing that its good to inquire..

blimey... what more do you want? blood...

Take it from me - Your input is always welcome when it points out sensible questions that should be asked.



Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I am also agreeing that its good to inquire..
blimey... what more do you want? blood...
No, an answer would suffice actually! A detectorist, an archaeologist and a member of the public have all asked, but all they've been told is that its good to enquire!

[Steve-B]

quote:But yes, blinkered has derogatory connotations and should not be used.

My sincere apologies Host. I did not mean to use a deragatory term.

But I do find it difficult to progress with any debate when at each post is met with as you quite rightly say "You and Nigel have an oft repeated point of view, unchanging unswerving, unchallengeable."



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

Thank you for that apology... you're right that debates such as this do become difficult, when the concept of debate is sometimes lost.

And thanks for the apology too Nigel - In answer to your question. BAJR will of course be recommending recording and reporting, I don't think it is my place to tell people where to do though - Ileave that to the organisations involved.

I can however as a private individual (with advice from organisations such as the CBA, CSA, UKDN, NCMD IFA etc...of course ) produce a document that aids the education of archaeologists, detectorists and yes the great british public.. but I can only do that with the help and advice gathered here.

I will be certain to take your advice and recommendations into consideration.

Can I also point you to my previous statement:

I will say it clearly, once and for all..
I agree with the essence of the CoP
I understand how difficult it has been to even create this CoP
I think that some terms and clauses need clarification and expanding
I realise this is a short A4 document, with not much room for this
I realise it should not be a 2 volume tome, and is guidance not advice.
I think the BAJR commentary will be useful in clarifying, but will not attempt to alter the CoP.

Hope that sates your curiousity

and yes I had a great SMR technical forum today.. I did bring up the subject.. the view was one of cooperation when appropriate and not breathing down necks.

We did look at the issues with HER/SMR data transfer... ah the joys of XML;)

Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

David, As you say, it’s not your “place to tell people where to�. But equally the signatories don’t think it’s their place either, and don’t. Leaving the telling to them would be doing them an injustice.

What the signatories actually do is recommend reporting all finds to PAS. By contrast, you indicate that BAJR will recommend “recording and reporting�, as do they, but you didn’t add their “report all finds to PAS� element.

That omission would mean BAJR’s recommendations would lack a core element of the CoP's recommendations and hence be significantly different.

[Sheddy]

9. Reporting any finds to the relevant landowner/occupier;

I have 1 farmer (out of 9 who's land I detect) who is interested in what I find. The others are not interested and do not want me botheriung them. I have one farmer who has asked me if I really have to report treasure items, fortunately(?) I have not had occasion to test his resolve on this matter.

and (with the agreement of the landowner/occupier) to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, so the information can pass into the local Historic Environment Record.

If the stuff is going to the HER, why bother with the PAS? It seems to me that if that is the best destination for the record, then the best bet is to by-pass the PAS and record directly with the HER. Thus, the PAS can be closed and the relevent funding be put into the HER to which the informaation is headed in the first place. Recording in this way will render the information no less accessable and remove a needless level of burocracy.
The PAS database is unsearchable in simple, everyday terms. They might do all the data-transfer milarky, but the database which is majorly made up of detectorists finds is not useable by the majority of detectorists. That makes recording with the PAS a one-way street in my opinion.
The PAS (on thier forum) allowed detectorists to be continually cajoled and denegrated (all be it in polite terms) and took no action, yet if a detectorist retorted they were dealt with in the severest of manner. The PAS is again shown to be there for the archaeologists, not the detectorists.
The PAS are well aware of the nighthawk situation at club level with a national organisation yet do nothing to address this problem. Indeed, they put their name to a document to which said organisation are co-signiturys. How does that lend the document or metal-detecting any credibility? How does it support the ideal of a responsble CoP? To my mind its like haveing an atheist as a God-parent. Why record with a Governmental organisation which legitimises nighthawking?

I, and many other detectorists will no longer record with the PAS as the organisation has done nothing to narrow the divide between legitimate detectorists and archaeologists. How can detectorists back a CoP which states that the PAS is the only acceptable recording medium?

Both the Country Land and Business Association (www.cla.org.uk) and the National Farmers Union (www.nfuonline.com) support the reporting of finds.
I fail to see the relevance of this in a detecting CoP
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

What about the UKDFD? Where are the details for that system of recording?

[BAJR Host]

What I do and don't say is putting words into my mouth..

I also did'nt say many things, but that doesn't mean I will not mention the PAS, for that is indeed a place to report artefacts.

Did you record your finds with the PAS or somewhere else?

Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

What I do and don't say is putting words into my mouth..

I also did'nt say many things, but that doesn't mean I will not mention the PAS, for that is indeed a place to report artefacts.

Did you record your finds with the PAS or somewhere else?

Another day another WSI?

David I most certainly did not put words into your mouth.
I merely noted the omission and was careful to say "That omission would mean..." (which it would).

I was unaware whether the omission was deliberate and therefore whether the question had been answered. However, yourlatest statement -
"that doesn't mean I will not mention the PAS, for that is indeed a place to report artefacts" persuades me it may have been.

I'm reduced to trying to work out the answer because a simple yes or no isn't available, goodness knows why, 3 people have asked - it's not a secret or a question that shouldn't be put, surely? If I'm not to know or you don't want to say, please feel free to say so.

[john1504]

quote:What about the UKDFD? Where are the details for that system of recording?

The UKDFD is a privately owned (possibly commercial) database and cannot be seen to be favoured by any Government funded dept.

But you know that already don't you...:D

[Steve-B]

It is the concept of recording that is paramount. One that I fully support.

Although the PAS are indeed the primary body for recording, I find it hard to support a CoP that does not allow for any latitude of choice, considering that there are other established bodies of recording.

I think that David is quite correct in his terminology that the PAS is a place to record.. it is...


quote:That omission would mean BAJR’s recommendations would lack a core element of the CoP's recommendations and hence be significantly different.


I disagree, Davids terminology is as he suggested the guide should be, an expansion on the CoP, listing the PAs and other recording bodies is indeed and expansion on this and does not detract at all from the core of the CoP, I would argue that it in fact enhances it.




www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[john1504]

Fair point Steve, but what avenues for recording exist other than those stated. HER have made it clear they prefer recording was done with PAS. I suspect this is because of manpower (or lack of).

[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.

[Steve-B]

quote:Is there anything stopping people reporting in more than one place? ie PAS and then your favourite/s

Yes, accoring to the letter of the CoP by doing so then we would be deemed as being irresponsible if did not record with PAS alone.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B
Yes, accoring to the letter of the CoP by doing so then we would be deemed as being irresponsible if did not record with PAS alone.
Absolutely not.
You can report in a thousand places if you want.

[Steve-B]

quote:Yes, accoring to the letter of the CoP by doing so then we would be deemed as being irresponsible if did not record with PAS alone.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

I learned how to answer questions from Nigel..

You try not to answer questions very well. :) - I have answered. have you?

As to the thorney reporting issue.. It is a tricky one.

There are avenues to reportat the moment.

PAS -> HER is one. I wouldlike to hear the view of the PAS whether they could physically cope with every detectorist in the UK reporting ALL their finds.

I also look at it from another way.. as people have said (as if its a bad thing) BAJR is a private company... it makes money from job adverts (not a bleedin nuf!) - however it also became a viable alternative to 'traditional' archaeologcail organisations with several staff, budgets etc etc.. to the point now, where it has gained respect and has the ability to work with these same organisations - as an equal. (:D) An individual and a private company can help.. it can provide a service that can be seen as a competitor... but is in fact a complimentary service.

The end result of years of sniping between the IFA and BAJR a concordance, where we have statements that say we are not competitors but complimentary...

see where I'm going?

Is it better to report? YES
to record? YES?

is it implicitly irressonsible to do report finds through any other medium than the PAS?

now thats the question.

I would say happily, that if it is shown that the UKDFD (for example) or anyone - had the ability to transfer the data to the HERs in the same metadata format as PAS... then whats the problem?

Now if I can be convinced there is a problem... fair point, if I could be convinced that the FLOs (lovely people that they are) are able to add a layer of knowledge and information that would otherwise be lacking, I can be swayed either way.


perhaps I should ask the PAS?

Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

[quote]Yes, accoring to the letter of the CoP by doing so then we would be deemed as being irresponsible if did not record with PAS alone.
Steve, the CoP gives the view that responsible detecting means recording accurate find spots for all finds and reporting all finds to the landowner and PAS. It doesn’t say to PAS alone. So Toby is right so far as I can see.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

is it implicitly irressonsible to do report finds through any other medium than the PAS?

now thats the question.

No David, that's not the question, not the one I've been asking anyway, as the CoP doesn't say that.

The relevance of my question arises from the fact that it is reasonable to believe that both the CoP and the BAJR guide will affect the treatment of the common resource (otherwise, they’d be pointless).

The CoP seeks to do so by saying it is responsible to report all finds to PAS. Whether the BAJR Guide specifically supports that is a very important question and a matter of legitimate interest to everyone, be they stakeholder, member of the public or taxpayer. I don’t see why the question, when put, should be answered “badly�.

I presume PAS signed the document knowingly, because it said exactly what they wanted it to. Anything else would not be what they want but what someone else wants.

Anyone is entitled to want or recommend whatever they want, but if its not what the signatories want then that fact should at least be made crystal clear. I'm grateful that you have now done so.

[Steve-B]

quote: It doesn’t say to PAS alone.

Yes it does, I dont see mention of any other body., so it is indeed alone as a recomendation and as this is a CoP for responsible detcting then the implication certainly is that it would be irresponsible to use any other boddy than the only one stated.


quote:Is it better to report? YES
to record? YES?

is it implicitly irressonsible to do report finds through any other medium than the PAS?

now thats the question.

I would say happily, that if it is shown that the UKDFD (for example) or anyone - had the ability to transfer the data to the HERs in the same metadata format as PAS... then whats the problem?

Now if I can be convinced there is a problem... fair point, if I could be convinced that the FLOs (lovely people that they are) are able to add a layer of knowledge and information that would otherwise be lacking, I can be swayed either way.

I have to say that I agree with Davids common sense approach to recording....



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

Now we have that cleared up... blimey!

Can You... Nigel answer my question, as I am interested in your experience -

How did you record your found artefacts? and Who did you report them too?

many thanks... its always good to find out about how people are doing it.

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B
[brYes, accoring to the letter of the CoP by doing so then we would be deemed as being irresponsible if did not record with PAS alone.


The CoP doesn't say that at all Steve. By all means put whatever interpretation you wish on any clause, but if you're going to refer to the document, there would be better understanding if you were to quote it correctly. If there were other avenues available for recording, I'm sure they would have been given a mention too.

[john1504]

Hosty wrote:

quote:I would say happily, that if it is shown that the UKDFD (for example) or anyone - had the ability to transfer the data to the HERs in the same metadata format as PAS... then whats the problem?


That is another reason why the UKDFD can't be recommended as a means of recording finds. The data is not (despite upgrades being promised some time ago) compatible with the HER format.

[Steve-B]

John, the CoP does indeed infer this.

I think the Cop is quite clear on this matter as have been the posts of some members on here as to the interpretation John.

There are other avenues for recording, avenues that have been mentioned on BAJR!

They may have been glossed over or ignored at the time, but they are still relevant.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[john1504]

I fully agree with you on the point of there being 'other avenues' Steve. But which of those fulfill the requirements of the HER and can be legally recommended by a government funded institution?

[Elgin]

quote: Yes it does, I dont see mention of any other body., so it is indeed alone as a recomendation and as this is a CoP for responsible detcting then the implication certainly is that it would be irresponsible to use any other boddy than the only one stated.

Steve, I think if you report a find to PAS, and also to anywhere under the sun - the pub, the chippy, the internet and the British Museum you will be entirely compliant with the CoP and that you'll find it contains neither words nor implications to the contrary no matter how hard you look.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host


Can You... Nigel answer my question, as I am interested in your experience
Yes, I thought you might be David. Unfortunately I was born long long before PAS existed, not yesterday, so I can't point you to an online reference number. If I could I would, of course.

[BAJR Host]

that is still a question which I need answered of course... the HER tranfer policy for a reporting source.

I would see complimentary rather than competing services as suitable routes. If the end result is HER compatibility then the CoP is still maintained.

Nigel... still interested in your recording reporting expereince. How did you feel it went.... do you have any suggestions on it.

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

quote:9. Reporting any finds to the relevant landowner/occupier; and (with the agreement of the landowner/occupier) to the Portable Antiquities Scheme,

Nope, cant find any reference to the pub, the chippy, the internet and the British Museum Nigel, just the PAS... are we looking at the same clause?

Bty the way Nigel, not sure if you missed Davids earlier question to you:


quote:Can You... Nigel answer my question, as I am interested in your experience -

How did you record your found artefacts? and Who did you report them too?

many thanks... its always good to find out about how people are doing it.


John, for example other avenues could include, for those that wish to record coins direct:

Celtic Coin Index (CCI) (http://www.writer2001.com/cciwriter2001/index.htm)

or the Early Medieval Corpus (EMC) (www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/coins/emc )

These are both valid bodies to record finds with.

Also, I do not see a problem why, after the issue of data transfer has been sorted why the UKDFD should not be seen as another valid body to record with. The fact that it is private is irrelevant.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Nigel... still interested in your recording reporting expereince. How did you feel it went.... do you have any suggestions on it.
I'm really flattered by the extent of your interest David - and Steve too I see! It's heartening to think maybe I don't look like an old fogey and you both actually might think I was born yesterday! Sadly though, I wasn't.

"How did you feel it went..."
Really well. It gave me a sort of warm saintly glow, as its good to share.

"do you have any suggestions on it".
None, as things are done entirely differently and far better nowadays.
My only slight gripe at the time was the cost of the petrol. But now the government has laid on FLOs who even come out to see what you've found so you don't have to travel. Wonderful days we live in - millions spent by the government on providing PAS for free, and soon I'll also have a bus pass for free. These youngsters don't know how lucky they are, do they?

[BAJR Host]

Really Nigel... :) that was informative as ever.. many thanks.. I take it your use of PAS (apart from the forum) is limited then.... ah well I do hope you find more artefacts and can utilise the service to the full. You do agree with PAS wholeheartedly I take it. Have you comments on anything other than detecting? would love to see you on the other forums, what about the BAJR letter to Northants Council about the cuts in archaeological service - that may be a useful campaign for you.

I have been talking with PAS, and once again given them my full support, as I would to any group that enabled the transerence of data in the required format to the HERs. After all, this is a public resource, does not belong exclusively to the archaeological community.


Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

quote:'m really flattered by the extent of your interest David - and Steve too I see! It's heartening to think maybe I don't look like an old fogey and you both actually might think I was born yesterday! Sadly though, I wasn't.

Sorry Nigel I dont follow... I just thought that in al the heat of the debate you had overlooked the question...

Shame you wont recount your recording experiences with us... I recall recording through my local county museum with fondness.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[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]

I would say you have it summed up.. that is the current state of play.

:)

I may even use that in the BAJR document.

things do change though... and although I do support the PAS 100% I also think that for a well designed and useable site the UKDFD is a cracker. If the exchange of data between them and the HERs could be agreed then it would be another route. This would not (IMHO) diminish the PAS and the excellent work of the FLOs, but complement it, and bring more and more people into the Record/Report fold..

It should be noted that although archaeological finds are not reported through PAS, they have their own strict Record Report system, which again... ends up in the HER. the new Oasis system (pain as it may be just now) is part of that system.. as is the ASPIRE protocol in Scotland.

As long as the data ends up in the same place, I don't mind how it gets there. The same also applies for Local Archaeology Groups. Without knowledge, and the ability to preserve the knowledge then it is just smoke in the wind... (was that in Gladiator?) Simple useable and accessible... thats all we all want..

so nicely summed Toby.... unlesss? anyone have a problem?



Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

I think it was an excellent summary.

However, I cant name names but I have been informed by one archaeologists (HER) that the time taken for the information to get from PAS to them very often arrives too late to be useful in planning, hence their preference fr direct recording (despite any agreements).

So although on paper the PAS is the only place curently accepting records and passing them to the HER in practice it is sometimes not the quickest method....



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

Thanks.

often it can take up to 6 months to put archaeology data onto HERs...

planning issues now are a problem... with less staff expected to do more work at a time when more houses are being built.

it is another thing to look at though

Another day another WSI…

[Sheddy]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

<<<<< planning issues now are a problem... with less staff expected to do more work at a time when more houses are being built. >>>>>�


Is that not the best arguement for closing the PAS and putting the saved funding into the HER? The HER is just a recording systemwhereas the PAS seems to be A-Political and as is the norm with politics, it cannot hope to get everything right. Surely it would better serve the recoprdif everyone were to record with a body that does not voice and opinion or take a course of action that gives apercieved opinion? In that way there would be no room for argueing toward dissent.

[Beardstroker]

quote:Originally posted by Sheddy


quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

<<<<< planning issues now are a problem... with less staff expected to do more work at a time when more houses are being built. >>>>>�


Is that not the best arguement for closing the PAS and putting the saved funding into the HER? The HER is just a recording systemwhereas the PAS seems to be A-Political and as is the norm with politics, it cannot hope to get everything right. Surely it would better serve the recoprdif everyone were to record with a body that does not voice and opinion or take a course of action that gives apercieved opinion? In that way there would be no room for argueing toward dissent.


The problem with HER's, as recent events at Northampton County Council have shown, is that their financing and resources are dependant on the whims of the politicians in control of the local authorities.

Some HER's are quite well staffed and could cope with an increase in recording, others could not.

[Corinne Mills]

As a detectorist I have contacted a number of HER's by email at times and have not heard back from them at all. The only one who bothered replying was in Scotland and couldnt be more helpful



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

[Steve-B]

quote:The only one who bothered replying was in Scotland and couldnt be more helpful

Just having an off day probably Co.... :D

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Corinne Mills]

oooo now you will be in trouble B)B):)

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

[Steve-B]

[:o)]

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

[:0][:0] :(

;)

thats my comment

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

Just teasing Hosty.....:)

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.