Metal Detecting and personal artefact collections

[Paul Barford]

Moved from the Archaeologists' opinions of the PAS
thread

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

That 'little hurdle' as you dismissively call it is far from out of the way PaulIts called "irony" Steve. You seemed to have facilely dismissed a whole series of issues with naive reference to vehicle etc. ownership. And frankly I do not understand what David was saying either. As I said, there's no point in trying to bridge a gap if we cannot first identify what its nature is, is there?


quote: You have absolutely no idea what drives and motivates a detectorist, you merely choose the worst case scenario because it suits you agenda. Well, the term "artefact hunting" implies you use metal detectors to hunt for (presumably metal) artefacts. Have I got the wrong end of the stick there? Please elaborate.

"Well, "detecting" is too imprecise a term for an activity which has a context, it is the hunt for artefacts for personal collection and/or sale". So what do "metal detectorists" do with the artefacts they find then? Perhaps we should start from the beginning, what do metal detectorists NEED a detector for, and what do they do with the things it "detects"? Could we have a stetemnt too then on which detectorists ell finds to dealers?

[u]Private ownership/"The Right to My Past" (its OUR heritage too innit?)</u> OK, lets take this real situation (sorry its from Poland). Forest area. Local metal detectorists busily combing area. What for? Little irregular bits of melted gold artefacts are scattered in the leaf litter which they are collecting and selling to raise a bit of income (lot of unemployment in the region). Area is not an archaeological site, not protected in any way (though I think now it will be to stop the detecting). The gold, through a legal loophole does not come under the equivalent to your treasure laws, it does not belong to anybody in particular (these are state forests). These guys have been doing it for years but we found out about it recently. There is likely to be more of this gold still in the soil. Finders keepers? What do you say Steve? Should we stop them and why? What would you say in the light of your views on artefact ownership?

Paul Barford

[Corinne Mills]

If the find has been recorded what does it matter to you Paul where the actual find is or what the detectorist has done with it?



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

[Paul Barford]

Hi Corinne, Is this an answer to my gold in the forest case? Well, that's one view on it, but I'd also like Steve's comment, as it was he who wished to develop the topic to include all "artefacts". I'd like to start the discussion with a simple example I was involved in. Steve?

[Corinne Mills]

Hi Paul

no - my post was in relation to "So what do "metal detectorists" do with the artefacts they find then? Perhaps we should start from the beginning, what do metal detectorists NEED a detector for, and what do they do with the things it "detects"?"

Can you answer please as Ive become increasingly confused by your posts sorry!

Can you also explain to me what these melted gold artefacts are?

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

[BAJR Host]

This is where I am increasingly moving towards... if the find has been recorded (to an adequate and sensible level) then what more do we need?

I see benefits from 'finding' but serious loss of info if we never find a resource which if left in modern intensive agricultural soils (note the ploughsoil only) will be destroyed. I was a bit shocked at the damage to the langdale axe at Thornborough... and the other one was only a smashed fragment.

Co is perhaps being sensible in her question, so I look forward to the answer.





"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Steve-B]

So are you saying that in confronting Paul with this issue initially I was not being sensible?


By the way Pual, you managed to answer not one single question I put to you before skipping to a new thread and onmitting to quote the whole of my post.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[BAJR Host]

Nope.... ! I think it was a sensible issue as well... I am a multiple sensible person.

However... point taken... and no it was not meant that way.

"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Steve-B]

Thanks David


quote: as it was he who wished to develop the topic to include all "artefacts".

Actually Paul if you had bothered to copy across the whole of my post to this thread, I proved the point when asked, that it was YOU, who raised the point of finding/collecting and selling artefacts in a thread not originally designed to cover that point.

As Corinne says, it is all too easy to move the goal posts that when tryingto encourage recording, we constantly told that it was the informatio that was important and not the find... and whole holy archaeologists are that they are not led by the passion to find artefcts but to seek 'undertsanding' through more concrete archaeology such as building remains..

Now that the recording mantra has been heard and more and more detectorists are recording, there has a not too subtle change to find the emphasis now being on the ownership of artefacts.

It appears to me that despite its holier than thou attitude, archaeology itself is a artefact driven as metal detcting is.

And you still have not addressed my questions on private ownership...

I have an interest in cigarette and tea cards... should these not alos be state owned for the benfit of the nation.

David, the car you drive, what gives you the right to own that?

Looking at it now, it is of as little historical significance on its won as one of the many buttons lost during the Tudor period... yet these are claimed to be nation possessions...

Or is just a wee bit more convenient not to look at it in the same light?





www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[BAJR Host]

quote:David, the car you drive, what gives you the right to own that?


My wife lets me ;)

But seriously ... I would refer you to a post on UKDN... but to save time... here it is..


quote:hey Muddy... nice to see you !

I was interested as you said.. One or two myths needed to be busted...!

The farmers fear the archaeologist.. thinking we will come in and make them pay.. (nope! - chance would eb a fine thing... after all - have they not noticed they don't have to pay for the other archaeology on their land?? )

farmers think they will lose out if they report a site - wrong... they will enter into a management agreement which will compensate them and ensure the site is protected.

Now one problem I do have is the blanket ban... To my mind... I really don't see the point of leaving artefacts in the PLOUGHSOIL if they can be recovered - recorded - and their whereabouts known. I do care if artefacts are taken from a site and not recorded (whether with PAS or UKDFD or both or even the HER) I think its daft.... and worse is Scotland, where the first action on finding a new site would be to ban the detectorist (or whoever found it) from any more activity on the site.... but hold on you say... I am obviously caring about it or I would not report it? !

Ther is wierdness and wrongness...confusion and perceptions... it all needs cleared up once and for all. Jsut wonder if any DEFRA bod... (hint hint) fancies a joint article in the FArming Press?

so I feel the recovery and recording is the main event... whether it si held in a house or held in a box in a museum ... who gives a xxxx as long as we know a) it exists b) where it is

Talked to an MD who can remain nameless..

"found a single gold stater - took it to the FLO... prepared to kiss it goodbye.. toook photos and held it in my hands a last time... but knew it was right to record it... I asked if I could have a reciept... No they said.... what I said... here is the coin... we have all we need... and we know where it is.... I left the tent skipping and laughing! - Then I thought... they are right... I find it... I record it... I say where it is.... what more do you need for most actual recordable finds?"

That hits it on the head



"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Steve-B]

David I actually agree with you on this, Paul however does not seem satisfied with the information being recorded, rather he appears to now be obsessed with the physical artefact...especially gold.

BTW, I only asked about your car to bring you into the discussion not that I was suggesting I knew your views on private colections aforehand.

An example, I found a bronze age spearhead sometime back, I took it into Kay Ainsworth at Winchester Museum, it was duly recorded... it also turnedout to be a previously unrecorded type.

Later in tryintg to see if any further information had come to light on this type of spearhead, I contacted Kevin Leahey (I think thats the correct spelling).. unfortunately he could not at that date tell me anymore about it.

In both cases I offered the spearheadto the museum services.. no charge..the offer was never taken up.. they had the info and knew where it was...

Doesnt seem like I was out for a quick buck does it...

I still have the spearhead and the museum services still know where it is.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Corinne Mills

Can you answer please as Ive become increasingly confused by your posts sorry! Well, by opening this thread I was trying to address in more detail Steve's original "an-artefact-is-an-artefact-and-what-right-have-you-to-say-I-cant-have-it?" argument (one he has used before). We seem to have gone off on some tangents without him saying what he thinks about the case I introduced, and I had a second one I wanted to ask him about before discussing what he said.

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

By the way Pual, you managed to answer not one single question I put to you before skipping to a new thread and onmitting to quote the whole of my post. I saw rather assertions rather than questions; answer my gold in the forest and the "black stones in a bag" (coming up) first and we can discuss it.


quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Actually Paul if you had bothered to copy across the whole of my post to this thread, I proved the point when asked, that it was YOU, who raised the point of finding/collecting and selling artefacts in a thread not originally designed to cover that point.
well, your entire post is still there intact for anyone to pore over if they really want to follow the flow of the discussion. (I made a point about the terminology in reply to David using a term other than the one I had, and you developed it into a discussion of ownership of archaeological artefacts). I took up the challenge it throws out, and started a new thread but would like to hear your reaction to two situations before I tell you how I see it. You accused me of "gobbing off" before, now I am quietly listening and waiting for a reaction.

This is not "moving the goalposts" the exploitation of archaeological site and finds scatters as quarries for collectables is and always has been the central concern here. It is rather the "PAS compromise" which has shifted the discussion towards "but if they are recorded its OK". If you had paid attention to what I have been saying all along, you will know that while agreeing up to a point, I am concernned about another side of the issue which this raises. Sois it always OK? What is this saying about our AHM policies? Is it OK in every case? Is an artefact an artefact as you were asserting, equating archaeological finds with David's car?

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

quote: about the case I introduced

There was no case, this was a Polish (or whatever countries) problem and hardly relevant to UK detecting.


quote:I saw rather assertions rather than questions; answer my gold in the forest and the "black stones in a bag" (coming up) first and we can discuss it.

Go back and read it again Mr Dick.. (oops sorry forgot to add clever)

There are several questions in there, also I asked prior to your Eastern European related question in response to you dig from another unrelated thread.


quote:well, your entire post is still there intact for anyone to pore over if they really want to follow the flow of the discussion.

NO..I want YOU to follow the flow of the discussion as you have the habit of only selecting the bits that fit your agenda.

You have not taken up any challenge what so ever, merely manipulating a discussion to try to fit it to your rhetoric is hardly picking up a challenge.

Associating archaeological artefacts with Davids car... nowlet me think, where did I read a bout a recent archaeological excavation of a Van.. :face-huh:

Oh yes on here, which was felt to beneficial by the majority of the archies on here.... why should I not compare the two?





www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B


quote: about the case I introduced
There was no case, this was a Polish (or whatever countries) problem and hardly relevant to UK detecting.
So, "archaeological artefacts are just like any other artefact", unless they come from Poland? Where did you say this in your earlier post? OK, let's make it an hypothetical situation from the UK if you like.... oh, never mind.

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Go back and read it again Mr Dick.. (oops sorry forgot to add clever)
Steve, I was trying to answer the challenin a serious manner the challenge you threw down which is in any case a question we have been over before. If you are just going to name-call and prevaricate then I can only suspect that this was not a genuine enquiry and just an attempt to inflame. Forget the rocks in a bag. Read it in the book. But then to answer you will have to write your own. No skin off my nose.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

Paul I cannot possible answer for the problem experienced in Poland, I can only discuss maters in relation to UK detecting.

Paul if you cannot take insults then do not throw them about.. your consistent referrence to metal detectorists as artefact hunters is a fine example of an insult designed to inflame. Yes, I know we hunt for artefacts, but your use of the term is intended as an insult. In the same way that one might call a black person a nigger... not acceptable chap and I am surprised that David has allowed it for so long!

All the time you continue to refer to me as an artefact hunter, then I will refer to you as a dick because in my opinion thats what you are, every bit as much as I am an artefact hunter...

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[tom wilson]

[quote]Originally posted by Steve-B

Go back and read it again Mr Dick.. (oops sorry forgot to add clever)


[snip]

Associating archaeological artefacts with Davids car... nowlet me think, where did I read a bout a recent archaeological excavation of a Van.. :face-huh:

Oh yes on here, which was felt to beneficial by the majority of the archies on here.... why should I not compare the two?

[snip]

OK two points for Steve B.
First, you are becoming increasingly offensive and out of order. Calm down, have a cup of tea, or just go away and do something else with your day. This is particularly in reference to your later comment which equates an accurate, if blunt, description of your activities to centuries old racial prejudice. When I read shocking statistics of the number of people getting arrested just because they happen to have been born detectorists, I might take you seriously. Since that isn't the case, you are being quite unacceptably ignorant. It seems you need a lesson in history as well as manners.

Secondly, the archaeological investigation of an old site van is only similar to David's car because it is an automobile. In all other respects, as property or as cultural signifier, it is totally different. Your classificatory error illustrates the differences in which archaeologists and (some) metal detectors structure their thinking. However, I think it is a moot point because, like your nemesis, your are becoming increasingly partisan and unwilling to enter into reasoned debate.

A plague on all your houses.

[BAJR Host]

This has now been dealt with by Moderators.. though you may like to know that Police were called to the Henges Rally.. and they were looking for me (as well as others ) in relation to digging holes on the Central Henge... fortunately I had a good alibi... for I was chairing the BAJR conference at the time... phew.

Everyone has now had a nice cuppa... as you rightly say... due to circumstances, it can be easy to spin outa control.. I was enjoying the reasonable 'Understanding Detecting' section... and know that it will continue to be so.... I am also to blame... and would like to apologise for enflaming... So .... breathe and continue.


"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Paul I cannot possible answer for the problem experienced in Poland, I can only discuss maters in relation to UK detecting.
No, I think the problem is Steve that you are fine making broad declarations but unwilling to apply them to real situations in the field. As I said, you could have treated it like a theoretical case in the UK, but I can see you are not interested in discussing it properly now somebody has taken you up on what you said. So you resort to just throwing out abuse.


quote: your consistent referrence to metal detectorists as Metal Detectorists [sic] is a fine example of an insult designed to inflame. Yes, I know we hunt for artefacts, but your use of the term is intended as an insult . I assume you MEANT to write "Artefact-hunters"? Tell you what, take that complaint to the editor of Rescue News that recently published two articles using the term and did not bat an eyelid. Tell her you are going to sue her for libel and see what she replies....

Metal detectors detect metal, metal detectorists detect metal, but Artefact-hunters hunt for artefacts (using among other things metal detectors). It is a perfectly accurate description of what type of use of a metal detector is of particular archaeological concern. As well you know in fact as you admitted as such on PAS Forum when the topic was under discussion there. Stop playing the indignant victim all the time please. If you think the type of metal detecting we are talking about here is NOT Artefact-hunting, please open a new thread here and write down precisely why you do not accept that and your ideas can be discussed.

The term is used by a lot of people, and by no means meant as an insult, do a Google search and it will throw up a whole host of pages using the term, such as the following:

Artefact-hunting
http://www.pnggossip.com/news/g010228.html

Garrett Ace 150 blurb (do you sell these?)
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:uAnLtG6nUzEJ:www.greenlightpublishi ng.co.uk/treasure/uploads/fieldtests/Test_77.pdf+artefact+hunting&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=29
"the Ace 150 looks like a good piece of kit for coinshooting, dry sand hunting and Artefact-hunting"

Missouri
http://coas.missouri.edu/mas/articles/articlearrowhead.html
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/07/30_hetlandc_moartifacts/

Texas
http://www.texasaaa.com/

South Carolina
http://www.dirtbrothers.org/gallery/bristow/

code of ethics
http://www.nativewayonline.com/safety~1.htm

Alaska
http://www.blm.gov/ak/ak930/fossil.html

Wisconsin
http://copperculture.homestead.com/artifactcollecting.html

Fisheries and wildlife service..
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/easternneck/history.html#artifact

and so on. Its a perfectly legitimate term in wide use Steve.

There is also the analogous "fossil hunting" and even a little Artefact-hunting ditty:
On my artefact-hunting safari, I
Searched in the broad Kalahari, I
Dug up one pound of gold—
Roman aurei, old;
Forty of, worth a thousand denarii.
http://www.oedilf.com/db/Lim.php?Quote=22132&Popup=1


Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

quote:As I said, you could have treated it like a theoretical case in the UK,

Why would I want to treat it as theoretical UK case... because it suits you to tar the UK detectorists the same as those of your adopted country?

You want to discuss UK detecting then post a UK example and stop trying to manipulate the discussion to your agenda.

I am not playing and indignant victim, I am just recognising your abusive insult for what it is.....

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Paul Barford]

OK. have it your own way. There seems to be something serious wrong with the scripting of BAJR Forum, when you write "artefact-hunting", the program changes it to "metal detecting". I think its time to break off this discussion at a point when others insist on putting different words into a person's mouth which make it impossible to express their own thought properly and even to define a fundamental term.

Right.

[BAJR Host]

Nothing wrong... It just makes my life easier.!

Sorry you can't discuss without using these words.

"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Nothing wrong... It just makes my life easier.!
Sorry you can't discuss without using these words.
"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
The fact is that what you persist in calling "metal detecting" is indeed a form of artefact-hunting and that in itself is in the opinion of most involved in the discipline and AHM a valid topic of discussion on an archaeology Forum. The truth that archaeology allegedly does not seek is sometimes painful, but however much some archaeologists may not wish to see(k) it does not make it any the less true. Putting words into other people's mouths like this making it impossible for them to exprerss their thoughts is not by any stretch of the imagination "neutrality" or "middle ground", it is most definitely taking sides is it not?

[Steve-B]

Paul, if the term was used by many others on this forum I wouldnt have a problem, coming from you it is an intentional insult designed to inflame.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

if the term was used by many others on this forum I wouldnt have a problem, coming from you it is an intentional insult designed to inflame So in what way does the fact that it is not used by "many others" here make it in some way "insulting"? Could you - in the interests of helping others here to 'understand metal detecting' - explain what is so "insulting" in this purely descriptive term? A term which I have shown in my post above is altready freely used by many art(i)efact hunters to describe themselves? In what way do you want to cut yourselves off from them and why? It is after all a term which you yourself said on PAS you actually had no problem with (sic) because its what you do. It seems to me that you are just being precious once again to disrupt what could have been a perfectly decent and fruitful (?) discussion. Well so be it, you've persuaded our neyutral Hosty to take sides with you and the term will not be used on this Forum, which merely and intentionally deprives its readers and users of the possibility of perceiving other viewpoints about the hobby. This section of the Forum has ceased to be about "understanding" metal detecting, sorry metal detecting, but defending it, which in my book are two different things. The rreason why so few people use a different terminolohgyn here is tha so few archaeological members of this Forum have any truck with discussions which degenerate into "D*cK' "n*gger" and other such foulmouth verbal 'niceties' from the detectoristsin place of a real free and frank discussion (didnt see Hosty editing them out, though art_fact h*nters is now regarded a dirty word). Steve, carry on deluding yourself. Corinne, if you want to continue the 'gold bits in the forest' discussion, you know where to find me.

Paul Barford

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Barford

[quote]quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

if the term was used by many others on this forum I wouldnt have a problem, coming from you it is an intentional insult designed to inflame So in what way does the fact that it is not used by "many others" here make it in some way "insulting"? Could you - in the interests of helping others here to 'understand metal detecting' - explain what is so "insulting" in this purely descriptive term? A term which I have shown in my post above is altready freely used by many art(i)efact hunters to describe themselves? In what way do you want to cut yourselves off from them and why? It is after all a term which you yourself said on PAS you actually had no problem with (sic) because its what you do.

Originally posted by Steve-B

Paul if you cannot take insults then do not throw them about.. It seems to me that you are just being precious once again to disrupt what could have been a perfectly decent and fruitful (?) discussion. Well so be it, you've persuaded our neyutral Hosty to take sides with you and the term will not be used on this Forum, which merely and intentionally deprives its readers and users of the possibility of perceiving other viewpoints about the hobby. This section of the Forum has ceased to be about "understanding" metal detecting, sorry metal detecting, but defending it, which in my book are two different things. The rreason why so few people use a different terminolohgyn here is tha so few archaeological members of this Forum have any truck with discussions which degenerate into "D*cK' "n*gger" and other such foulmouth verbal 'niceties' from the detectoristsin place of a real free and frank discussion (didnt see Hosty editing them out, though art_fact h*nters is now regarded a dirty word).
Steve, carry on deluding yourself. Corinne, if you want to continue the 'gold bits in the forest' discussion, you know where to find me, I'd welcome a talk with a detectorist that does not throw a foulmouth tantrum every time they cannot find another evasive answer.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Have to confess you will have to point out the ones I failed to edit.. I thought I saw most of it.. (please do it with a PM)

I would remind you that this is a place of discussion, and we must all look to ourselves .. each and every one of us... to think about what we write and say.. I would like to point out that I am neutral.. and as such try not to take sides, other than ensuring that debate takes place - and by debate I mean debate.. where we listen to each other. I do have better things to do with my life.. so would like people to act as grown ups. (I include myself in that)

ps... my signature is a nice jokey quote from Indiana Jones.. please don't see it as a threat.





"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Steve-B]

Yet agin you throw around insult wqith impunity.

I used the term nigger as being an example of just how offensive the term you for a metal detectorist is Paul... and however nicely you try to word it to get out of this you are still guilty of using it in a derogatory manner.

As for using the term Duck, then stop acting like one, You would no more walk out in the street and call a black man a nigger than I would, yet you seem happy enough to continue using an equally offensive term on here.... and you have the cheek to call me foul mouthed.

Yet again you have managed to evade all questions originally posed to you Paul by manipulating a thread away from the main theme... answer the questions Paul!

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[BAJR Host]

As it stands we are going nowhere...

I am minutes away from public warnings all round.



"Archaeology is the search for fact. Not truth."
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

As it stands we are going nowhere...
Quite, and I am not even aware what questions it is I am accused of evading. So I will plead fear of getting a warning from Hosty for saying anything else and shut up.

[Steve-B]

That'll be a first.

[BAJR Host]so lets give peace a chance - no prodding from anyone please [BAJR Host]

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[kevmar]

Oh happy days. [:p]

[kevmar]

Testing !!!!
Very wide texts,
hope it's not my pooter.[:I]