Plough damage

[Paul Barford]

In the 'personal artefact collection' thread we find two comments by our Host which seem worth exploring with regard to "Understanding Metal Detecting".

He writes

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I really don't see the point of leaving artefacts in the PLOUGHSOIL if they can be recovered - recorded - and their whereabouts known .
NO point David? what about the principle of preservation in situ which underlies modern conservation policy? Are you throwing it out of the window in your county? What about the prospect of later field surveys of sites which have been (to use a term met in the discussion of Cunmwhitton) "hammered" by artefact hunters? Such as flint scatters which have been repeatedly "cherry picked" by many collectors, how can you later interpret these assemblages in a systematic field survey? There is a site near me which has been collected away by flint collectors, leaving only the shapeless spalls, and you can imagine the problems trying to find out what has gone and where it is now. Can you really see no point in trying to retain these artefact scatters intact for future non-invasive research?

As for "whereabouts known", what happens to the objects when the original collector dies? How is the whereabouts of an object recorded in PAS tracked into subsequent generations, when there might be a whole host of questions a researcher may wish to pose an object recorded and taken away by an artefact collector twenty years earlier. By that time it could be on the other side of the world having passed through several hands. This is the fatal flaw in the "we are only rescuing these things, giving them a good home" argument.


quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

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.

WILL it? We've been through this before, but I think its the first time I have heard you take a position on it. You seem to have no doubt that the phenomenon is a general one.

Is this the axe you mean?
http://rallyuk.org.uk/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=2589
How much of this damage looks fresh (ie attributable to the effects you describe) and how much here is old breaks? If you look, the edges of the fracture are rounded off and weathered in the soil. There are some fresh scratches on one face while the other has what look like to me to be older damage. This looks to me like an axe in the samde sort of battered condition you get from stratified contexts too. How can you tell that this is all fresh damage? Obviously a way to resolve this would be by examining the breaks under a microscope and looking at the degree of alteration of the minerals in the exposed faces, but of course since this object has presumably wandered to a personal collection, organizing such an examination of this "recorded" object is rather more difficult than if it was kept in a project archive. When its up in the database we can see whether that information is recorded as part of the PAS preservation by documentation of the information in that object.

I really think it is about time that there was a serious survey on this topic, not just anecdotal and "look at this piece here" type stuff, but a proper serious and multidisciplinary study. Maybe DEFRA could finance it if EH is not going to after raising the issue back in the mid 1990s?

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

In answer to your two points... Preservation is the prefered option - however - it is just that... preservation in situ.. ie fully undisturbed deposits or deposits that will not be under threat from agricultural activity (believe it or not... I have no jurisdiction over agricultrual development or practice - So a farmer can put up a shed and deep plough a field, where if that was a developer I would be requesting mitigation/preservation etc.)

As to the axe, I can't tell.. as you seem to a memeber of the RallyUK forum and I am not. I also have to say that I handled the axe in the flesh/stone, and have details on the smashed fragment as well. So I would say - plough damage - and I have seen many axes from stratified sites as well... though must say that stratified Neolithic sites are very very rare in the UK. As to the find wandering off.. it has been recorded and the PAS know exactly where it is.... details have been sent to All parties in the area and if anyone wants to take it further they can.

I was under the impression that the EH study Ripping up the Past, made it clear the extent of plough damage to sites. However you may wish to suggest this to DEFRA. As I am sure it is an interesting suggestion... See also the (imho slightly flawed but damn good start) Mike Griffiths teams glass balls test -

http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsultancy.co.uk/papers/001_plough.php

This also shows the breaking up of pottery - looking a size diff between ploughsoil and feature.


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

[tom wilson]

The week before his death, I went with Peter Reynolds to a field he had fieldwalked once very ten years. I recall that this was the fourth occasion. The methodology was to collect 100 sherds and lay them out like jigsaw pieces over as small an area as possible. During that time period, the sherds had gone from fist-sized Bronze Age lumps to the fingernail-sized crumbs that were all I could find.
I would construct a similar experiment differently today, but the man was there doing it at a crucial point in the development of agriculture. Paul calls for serious study of ploughsoil damage. I expect he knows that only very long term projects like Peters' would give definitive results. The experiments one might do now (comparing adjacent ploughed and unploughed fields, for example) are subject to all kinds of limiting biases in distribution. However, the results of this and no doubt other similar projects are all down at Butser.

Oh and Paul, your speculation about a photo of an axe which might be the same one as David saw isn't all that authoritative either. Where you critique the loss of information due to inadequate recording and monitoring of MDed/artefact hunted finds, I am generally in agreement. However, your partisan stance does this view little good. Artefacts in ploughsoil are not preserved in situ. There is no question about that. The essence of this debate is reconciling that fact with the (similarly unquestionable) universal ownership of cultural information inherent in historic objects.

'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur

[Paul Barford]

I dont know why you lot think I was born yesterday, but I am well aware of this kind of work (there's some in Poland too you might not know about), but that is not the point I was making about the "Artefdact hundting as Rescue model". No you are wrong that "only a long term project" would produce useful results. But I really can no longer be bothered to clarify, its obviously a waste of tuime to attempt that here. We can discuss it off list if you like.

quote:Originally posted by tom wilson

Oh and Paul, your speculation about a photo of an axe which might be the same one as David saw isn't all that authoritative either. Didnt say it was, I asked if that was the axe he was describing. But of course a brief and standardised verbal description and a photo are all that the mahjority of users of the PAS database will ever habe access to in order to inteerrogate that object. What you say cuts to the heart of the 'PAS as preservation by record' concept, but i dont expect you wanted to do that.


quote: Artefacts in ploughsoil are not preserved in situ. well, I dont know what you read but I was not talking about "artefacts" but "sites" (maybe its been changed by after I wrote it, who knows). I really do not see how you can think I think that they would be. Nevertheless there is a considerable amount of evidence from the kind of studies you mention that the artefact scatters are being reproduced despite annual ploughing and are not random in their structure. Selectively removing material from them does not - surely - constitute sustainable preservation in situ of the evidence about the site which they constitute.


quote: There is no question about that. The essence of this debate is reconciling that fact with the (similarly unquestionable) universal ownership of cultural information inherent in historic objects tell that to Steve and the other metal detectorists. Sorry metal detectorists.


quote: However, your partisan stance does this view little good anything wrong with having a concrete view based on thinking about about how we should and should not be protecting the remains of the past and presennting it even though not all agree?

Paul Barford

[tom wilson]

[quote]Originally posted by Paul Barford

I dont know why you lot think I was born yesterday,

[quote]
nice to see my words being repeated from another thread. Incidentally, if you are aware of this kind of work, and of Ripping Up the Past, what kind of 'serious and multi-disciplined study' are you suggesting?

[quote]
I really can no longer be bothered to clarify, its obviously a waste of tuime to attempt that here.
[quote]
You write an awful lot for someone who can't be bothered. It's unfortunate that so much of it is dedicated to unnecessary tangents (certainly not all your doing). I don't suppose you stop to think about how you come across do you? I appreciate that you're probably feeling a bit put upon, but I'm basically on your side. Did you intend to alienate my goodwill along with everyone else's when you wrote the first sentence I have quoted?

[quote]
there is a considerable amount of evidence from the kind of studies you mention that the artefact scatters are being reproduced despite annual ploughing and are not random in their structure. Selectively removing material from them does not - surely - constitute sustainable preservation in situ of the evidence about the site which they constitute.
[quote]

Ah, now THIS, this is interesting and productive discourse. I agree that there have been some very interesting artefact studies based on location regardless of perturbation. However, I personally think that the contextual information lost due to ploughing is deeply regrettable, to say the least. If it was covered by PPG16, the old fudge 'preservation by record' would be called for. Don't you agree?

[quote]
anything wrong with having a concrete view based on thinking about about how we should and should not be protecting the remains of the past and presennting it even though not all agree?
[
quote]

Not at all. By 'partisan' I meant passing over data that will not help you win an argument, which is what I assumed you were doing. This is because I didn't think you would rather see sites ploughed away than have any kind of detectoring at all. Do you agree that ploughing is generally a bad thing? Put another way, are you less concerned with the loss of stratigraphy than you are with an atomisation of the dataset you see as inevitable in even best MD practice?
These are not leading questions; nor are they rhetoric.

Edit: sorry that should read 'rhetorical'. I really ought to get to grips with this quotation thing too.

PS is 'MD' insulting? I can't keep up with that tangent I'm afraid.

[Steve-B]

MD is fine, a rtefact h unter is fine as long as it is not intended as an insult.

Can I just add that I feel the term 'Plough Damage' can be a bit misleading.

from my experience the main culprit for the damage caused to small metallic finds happen when the farmers use the mechanical pronged surface breaker (sorry dont know the specific anme of the equipment).

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[BAJR Host]

Thats true... and for sites it is the infamous pan buster!

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Steve-B]

quote:There is no question about that. The essence of this debate is reconciling that fact with the (similarly unquestionable) universal ownership of cultural information inherent in historic objects
tell that to Steve and the other metal detectorists. Sorry metal detectorists.

Tell me what?

I have never argued against the who the information that an object can supply belongs to... in fact I spend an enormous amount of time and energy and my own money in promoting recording.

<snip> BAJR <snip>

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

MD is fine, a rtefact h unter is fine as long as it is not intended as an insult.
And when is it? Only when I use it but not when the others do (like in the references I posted up a couple of days back)? At your bidding David arbitrarily changed every single occurrence of the term in past posts into "metal detecting" - making a noonsense of their wording. Its a nonsense because flint hunting on the Wolds and Downs is also artefakt hundting istnt it? And when I used ythe term I was referring to that too. Or arent struck flints "real" artefakts and are they not being hundted for but... "detected"? (Flint detecting?) Come on Steve. Stop playing the victim all the time.

<> Snip PMB <> maybe Steve you could follow the thread back through the previous posts (the ones that have remained the way they were written and not had bits arbitrarily altered to make them nonsensical). Look at what I said about the axe which David mentioned and what I would not mind betting cannot now be checked about those surfaces on the basis of the PAS "record" (I may be wrong, but lets just say fr the sake of the dicusssion). Then look at what Tom replied which was the context of my remark about personal possession of objects that would be better off in a publicly available collection [where they can be re-examined by future generations with fresh questions]. Let's say there is a possibility that there is information on that axe which probably is not in the PAS record, the fact that its wandered on its way to privately-owned-artefact-oblivion really is not going to help society getting back that information about Thornborough or anything else. Especially if after passing through several personal collections over the next century or so it stands a good chance of losing all record of provenance. That is what I meant. And its entirely relevant to what you were saying about personal ownership. That's , <> snip PMB <> putting your argument about "ownership" in a real context. Anyway this thread says at the top its about "plough damage".

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Lets get this clear.

both the term Artefact Hunter and Archie can be used in contexts where it is celar that they are being used as an implied insult. Archie can be used only when it is clear that it is used in a context that is friendly, (I myself often have difficulty spelling the whole word ! - must think of a short term... hmmmmmmmmm archie... hmmmmmm nah) Artefact hunter has certain implications of tomb raideresque qualities (mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... er.... cough.....sorry - this is serious)

We are all grown up to know how we use words to imply.... in future will people return to using MD or detectorist and archaeologist (or archie when no implied denigration is intended).

Now as this thread is about plough damage........ can we get back there? As the pope would say (oh... hang on.... he's worse than us!)

We all 'hunt artefacts and sites...




"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[BAJR Host]

quote:Let's say there is a possibility that there is information on that axe which probably is not in the PAS record, the fact that its wandered on its way to artefact-oblivion really is not going to help society getting back that information about Thornborough or anything else. Especially if after passing through several private collections over the next century or so it loses all record of provenance

This of course would be sensible if it was not for the fact... the sad but real fact that in the next decade the axe would cease to exist as an artefact - it would be crushed rolled, ploughed, rolled, crushed rolled etc etc until the axe was now a series of unrecognisable pebbles which would have no use at all to anyone.

Thats just a cold hard fact... the metallic artefacts in the ploughsoil horizon will dissapear completely from the record unless the are collected AND recorded in situ.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Steve-B]

quote:
There is no question about that. The essence of this debate is reconciling that fact with the (similarly unquestionable) universal ownership of cultural information inherent in historic objects
tell that to Steve and the other metal detectorists. Sorry metal detectorists.


Tell me what?

I have never argued against the who the information that an object can supply belongs to... in fact I spend an enormous amount of time and energy and my own money in promoting recording.

Come on Barford put up or shut up, you have thrown around one too many insults...

Host, with respect, I wish to lodge a formal complaint. My track record shows that I have worked ceaselesly to promote recording amongst detectorists, I am demonstrably more than aware of the important of the inherent information contained by an artefact and its relevancre to our common heritage, whatever my personal thoughts may be on the ownership of the artefact itself.

You have edited out my rmeark in reference to Puals untruths yet you let his misuse of my name remain.. unfair!

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Lets get this clear. both the term Artefact Hunter and Archie can be used in contexts where it is celar that they are being used as an implied insult. [...] Artefact hunter has certain implications of tomb raideresque qualities (mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... er.... cough.....sorry - this is serious) Yes, let's get this clear.
Words like "Jew" and "Nazi" can also be used insultingly, but are used descriptively in another thread in this section. The term artefacvt hundter has nothing to do with "tomb robbing", are you not confusing it with the term "looter" or maybe "TREASURE hunter" which is what metal detectorists used to call themselves? "Ardefakt hundtr" is a perfectly acceptable neutral term for the activity we are discussing (after all if these people are going to "rescue" flints and potsherds from plough damage how are they going to do it with a metal detector?).

What Steve's problem is of course is it focusses attention away from the neutral "detecting" (finding) to the aim of the activity, to find artefacts (and that's the "keeping"). The term "metal detecting" does not cover the full range of activities which we are discussing (such as flinting and mudlarking on foreshores, pothunting etc).

And yes it "is serious", its a serious distortion of facts to pretend we are all talking just about metal detecting when we are in fact discussing hunting for artefacts in general, not just metal detectoring. That is not the way to any kind of "Understanding", except a very superficial one surely.

After all metal detecting would be the description of a hobby rather like train spotting, where the guys walk across the fields counting the number of "hot spots" they can detect in three hours but without taking anything out of the ground. That's what metal detecting would be surely. If they are picking something up after they have "detected" it, then they are doing something else aren't they? So what do we call this branch of the hobby, the picking things up and taking them home type? "Metal detecting and taking" maybe?


quote: We all 'hunt artefacts and sites... Sorry? So in that case, why did you deem it so offensive that you had to alter all the old posts? And do we? How many archaeological field surveys have in their project design "to find my first hammie"? So you would say that "all" archaeology is "tomb raideresque"?

Since we are talking about people's feelings, please remove that quip about the Holy Father, I find it offensive, and we use a capital "P" to express respect.

Paul Barford

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
This of course would be sensible if it was not for the fact... the sad but real fact that in the next decade the axe would cease to exist as an artefact - it would be crushed rolled, ploughed, rolled, crushed rolled etc etc until the axe was now a series of unrecognisable pebbles which would have no use at all to anyone.
Thats just a cold hard fact... the metallic artefacts in the ploughsoil horizon will dissapear completely from the record unless the are collected AND recorded in situ. Well that is a really broad generalisation. ...no authority quoted, no time period suggested...
If you look back I was questioning whether the damage on that object which is your evidence for what "would" happen to it (you say) was old or new. OK, show me a stone axe from anywhere in the world that by modern plough damage has been reduced to a "pebble" within a few decvades, let alone one. If this is happening in such damaging quantities, there must be hundreds of examples from fieldwalking surveys. Show us one or two please. Or maybe its not actually that simple and straightforward...

Where do you get the "ten" years from?
I cant help thinking that your text was influenced by this:
http://www.archaeologicalplanningconsultancy.co.uk/mga/projects/noster/pages/schedule.html "The archaeological deposits at Ladybridge Farm are subject to the same processes of persistent erosion by the plough. Like Harding, I would estimate that within a few years, certainly less than ten, they will have disappeared totally from the archaeological record. With them will have gone what little useful information they retain. The remains are poorly preserved and their potential is limited, but as long as they survive in situ they have some potential, some realisable value. After being ploughed this coming autumn their potential will be lessened, and again next year, and again...

The picture painted by opponents of change is frequently misleading and mischievous; it has to be to make a case, to grab the headlines and be given the oxygen of publicity. Quarrying is therefore portrayed as the destroyer of our archaeological heritage despite the fact that over most of the country for the last twenty or more years it has more frequently been its only saviour, preserving by record what would have otherwise been destroyed in situ, unrecorded, by the plough.

Many archaeologists have benefited, and continue to benefit, from the opportunities offered by mineral working. Unlike agriculture, strict planning controls ensure that any losses that might be occasioned by society's demand for minerals are, after public and democratic debate, compensated for; the polluter surely pays. Despite this quarry operators are condemned by some archaeologists as being like a Pol Pot; an unpleasant, unmerited and unforgivable slur. Perhaps these myopic critics should first address the failings and double standards of our own profession and those of the appointed and publicly funded guardians of our heritage."

Substitute "metal detecting" for "quarrying" and the parallels are pretty acute. He says, let's let my employer dig it and we can quarry the landscape away, your metal detectorists say lets "detect" and take all the artefacts out of the top eight inches of the ploughsoil and you can plough the sites as deep as you like...

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

quote:What Steve's problem is of course is it focusses attention away from the neutral "detecting" (finding) to the aim of the activity, to find artefacts (and that's the "keeping"). The term "metal detecting" does not cover the full range of activities which we are discussing (such as flinting and mudlarking on foreshores, pothunting etc).

The real crux of the matter is Paul is that in your obsessive hate of the hobby of metal detecting, your only interest is to goad and needle.

You have yet to discuss any subject without injecting metal detcting into it, always in a bad light at each and every opportunity.

You level level of refined offensiveness may be acceptable to the members, but it is totally unaccpetable.

You pride yourself on your superiority over those of a lower education such as myself, whereas you should be ashamed of yourself to put your intellegence to such use and those that condone you.

Tom may have a problem with the way I am, but at least I am honest, if I feel there is a time to tell sopmeone to eff off then I will say that, especially when I am struggling with those of a higher level of education to express myself and present a valid arguement, in the face of continual scorn. I do not consistantly hound, harrass, manipulate and goad unlike you.

Barford, your profession should be ashamed of you and of those that support you.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B
The real crux of the matter is .... ... that as you say you can only think to tell somebody to "eff off" (sic) when you come to a problem you cannot answer and get Hosty to bail you out by banning a term you cannot cope with. I think everybody (almost) here can see that it is a perfectly adequate description of the hobby carried out by most of those people you sell those metal detectors to however much you want to pretend otherwise. Its not got anything to do with "education".

[BAJR Host]

Hosty bails out nobody.

Are you talking about plough damage or detecting? The thread clearly staes plough damage, the discussion is about plough damage so can we.. stick to plough damage. The post you put up, is worth reading and answering, why did I have to sigh and think... I am now going to have to waste more of my time ..... You had a perfectly good post in reply to mine, it was valid, on topic and intersting... I would enjoy answering it... but find myself instead writing this instead...

What could have been an intersting debate where I and other could learn things... You are quite right my, basis for the decade was rough and ready and based soley on the work already don on plough damage by EH and Mike Griffiths, as well as the quoted work


quote:The week before his death, I went with Peter Reynolds to a field he had fieldwalked once very ten years. I recall that this was the fourth occasion. The methodology was to collect 100 sherds and lay them out like jigsaw pieces over as small an area as possible. During that time period, the sherds had gone from fist-sized Bronze Age lumps to the fingernail-sized crumbs that were all I could find.
I would construct a similar experiment differently today, but the man was there doing it at a crucial point in the development of agriculture. Paul calls for serious study of ploughsoil damage. I expect he knows that only very long term projects like Peters' would give definitive results. The experiments one might do now (comparing adjacent ploughed and unploughed fields, for example) are subject to all kinds of limiting biases in distribution. However, the results of this and no doubt other similar projects are all down at Butser.

From personal experieince in fieldwalking I am also aware of the rule of thumb about size of find (whether pottery, metal or stone) where the smaller the find the more it has been ploughed... but find some bigger bits and you could have a site... dragged up by deeper ploughing.

You are right though I plucked, rather than researched... a habit I am quite bad at! B)

The damage to flints can be extensive, especially when put through a de stoner.

I would be grateful if you do have any pointers to negate these personal assumptions however... I suspect though we are both talking from positions of guesswork

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Steve-B]

quote:. that as you say you can only think to tell somebody to "eff off"

At least I dont take half a dozen paragraphs to say it Barford.

It is indeed a perfectly adequate term to use to describe the hobby until you use it as an insult.

As to acting the victim Barford, far from it I have spent a lot of time on here, normally time that could be better spent trying to describe detecting, the terminology and the equipment only to continually have to face your bitching at every step.

Personally I would spend my time continuing to do just that, but I am damned if I will sit back and do nothing while you continually fling insults about.

It appears to me that if anyone is being bailed out Barford then it you, I see your insults still stand.

You are a living, breathing reason why it has been an uphill struggle to get detectorists to record...

Something I have do more in a week to encourage than you ever will in lifetime.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Hosty bails out nobody So restore art-fact h-nting and let the "detectorists" do their own philosphising about why itas not applicable and we will listen. Upon Steve's complaint, you acted in a way which hinders proper discussion of the issues, flattening it to a mere and poorly-descriptive euphemism. Can you not see that this might give the impression that you were rescuing Steve and his fellow detectorists from a situation you regarded as a sticky one?


quote: I suspect though we are both talking from positions of guesswork the difference being that I do not state what "will" happen in ten years time to a hunk of Langdale rock if we dont let detectorists take it away.

Paul barford

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

time that could be better spent trying to describe detecting, the terminology and the equipment ... Steve if you look at the several threads here in which you try to do that, the number of replies suggests that there really is very little interest among non-detecting BAJR members in the "equipment" or "terminology". But what is of interest is the scale and type of impact of the hobby on the archaeological resource, which is the main topic of my comments. I would say this is a topic more topical for an archaeology forum than what the little green knob does. If they want to find that out, BAJR members can join any one of a number of metal detecting forums (like good old friendly UKDN) cant they?

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Right this topic is not discussing what the thread says.

So end of topic.

Try again and this time stay on topic.

the difference being that I do not state what "will" happen in ten years time to a hunk of Langdale rock if we dont let detectorists take it away.

no you don't... you don't ever give anything but your own opinion about detecting.. we know it, we understand. I wanted to talk and discuss plough damage. sadly it is turning into another problem topic. Thanks to this sort of negativity what was a decent dection, which discussed and informed... and yes it did... there was sections on discussing what detecting did, on why archaeologists thought what they did. This is not discussion it is just mayhem.


So restore art-fact h-nting and let the "detectorists" do their own philosphising about why itas not applicable and we will listen.

You do not listen... I have never seen you listen .. never seen you discuss. It may be a sad fact but every time I see a post from you I know it will be about detecting and I know the thread goes off the rails.

Cool it... start another thread - discuss plough damage and keep to that topic.... Everyone cool it.. or goodbye !




"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Right this topic is not discussing what the thread says.
OK, back to Thornborough and the "plough-damaged axe". On the front page of Rally UK at the moment is a gold (gold) coin found by "Digger John" at "Thornbourough henges" (sic)which has been in that ploughsoil for at least those "ten years" subject to the same battering as the axe. There is very little damage to this object. So I think its simplistic to state that all objects in this ploughsoil are undergoing fragmentation and erosion. Also we have not yet been shown the evidence behind the claim that these axes will be reduced to pebble-sized bits in ten years of modern ploughing.

As I said, the whole subject is complex and needs to be subject of a proper study and not generalisations and anecdotal evidence.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

I think common sense indicates that an object as large as a BA Axe is going to suffer more from plough damage than a smaller item such as coin, which in all probability would just be pushed aside by the plough.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[JBM]

I feel I must support Steve with regards his views about items suffering plow damage.

Almost all my smaller finds items have very little mechanical type of damage.

The biggest problem and loss to us all is corrosion and its a race aganst time to save some important historical finds.

This is where metal detectorists are doing their part and more to save our fast eroding past.

This is possibly due mainly to the modern day use of chemicals as well as mother natures natural way of recycling.

Fortunately many of the farmers see this in the same light as metal detectorist and all is not lost even though overall we are fighting a losing battle.Jerry.

Retired Aerospace manager after many years in the engineering industry..
Locating and preserving historical items for future generations to enjoy.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

I think common sense indicates that an object as large as a BA Axe Ah exactly, so you are agreeing with what I said two weeks or more ago on this, so we are getting somewhere. Not only is it common sense, but corresponds to what studies have shown about how plough damage to objects in the ploughsoil occurs. The smaller the surface area ratio in relation to volume the less likely it is to fragment further. So in reality something as robust as a Langdale axe is not so easily reduced to "pebble sized pieces" just by being shifted around in the soil..... It might get broken in half, or scratched up a bit, but would still be perfectly recognizable as a Langdale axe fragment. As I said, berfore making vast generalisations like this, we need a proper study to be carried out. Talk to DEFRA about funding one for you.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

I do agree with you Paul, although I would also caution that damage to finds is not just caused by the plough... these days they utlise some very viscious bits of equipment to break up the ground and while the ploughg itself might not damage small finds, these jobbies certainly do.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[Paul Barford]

How much difference does it make on the effect on the objects of varuious materials contained in that soil whether the force is applied horizontally or vertically or comes from the north or south? And in what soil types under what conditions? Add that question to the ones to be asked by the study. You know, I think we've been through all this before - several times... and we will not get anywhere nearer to being able to talk about this properly with "what if"s and "maybe"s and "I saw once"....

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

Paul, our what 'ifs', 'maybes' and 'I saws' may well not be hard enough evidence to convince you that there is a need to rescue artefacts from further damage, but it does not preclude some us that have first hand experience of this discussing the problem.

Feel free not to go through it again, but to some of us the effect of agricultural damage to these artefacts is real and present.




www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[Paul Barford]

Just to clarify before we start a twenty second cycle of the same old stuff. I too am not without "first hand experience" and never said that agricultural damage does not occur. I question its use as an excuse for the personal collecting.

[BAJR Host]

Would a "personal collection" be more acceptable when it is connected to public recording?


"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Would a "personal collection" be more acceptable when it is connected to public recording?Would a personal collection of rare orchids picked from the wild be "more acceptable" if there was a database listing the blooms that were taken and which ecosystems they'd been taken from?

In the case of the artefacts, if it was something like 90% of them had 100% of the information recorded, we could start discussing it.

At the moment its between 60 (?) and 80% of them have no public recording of [u]any</u> of the information associated with them (and of the rest where we do have a record of sorts, as Roger Bland stressed in RN 99, we dont actually know what percentage of their finds PAS has even seen).

Certainly at the moment taking archaeological finds out of their assemblages and scattering them in that sort of personal collection with only a partial and rudimentary record (six fig NGRs etc) cannot properly be deemed any kind of "rescue" can it?

As Renfrew noted in the current state of collecting, the "good home" argument really applies only to stray dogs and not archaeological artefacts.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

quote:Would a personal collection of rare orchids picked from the wild be "more acceptable" if there was a database listing the blooms that were taken and which ecosystems they'd been taken from?

I don't know as we were not discussing them... ;) neither are we talking about stalagtites, cars. I'm guessing from your answer that the answer would be yes, if we see a recording regime that can be shown to be extensive.

This (as the thread title is about - I thought) does not get away from the central question... which seems to be important..

What is better... that finds (from the ploughsoil) are recovered and recorded before they are damaged to a point that would make any future recovery pointless. (of course we have to decide whether the studies carried out so far show that finds are damaged by farming practice) OR that we should just leave them there - on the off chance that you are right and the artefacts will not be damaged and the sites that we as yet don't know about will not be lost before we even know they are there.

THe question in my mind is how do I work WITH the detectorist and other groups to ensure that when artefacts are found they are reported and recorded, and that sites that are found are protected in a realistic manner (which could in many cases allow further ploughsoil detecting with recording)

I could of course lecture and distance the very people who are best placed to find and recover. I know which way I should go though.

Though the discussion still hinges on the Plough Damage arguement.

I believe that artefacts (and sites) are damaged by farming practice and also realise that we need farming. To me inaction is not an option. - No Orchids need be involved. ;)

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

What is better... that finds (from the ploughsoil) are recovered and recorded before they are damaged to a point that would make any future recovery pointless. Well surely this should be something we discuss only after there is a proper study showing how where and when this damage occurs to that sort of degree. Nobody denies that finds in ploughsoil get damaged by various agencies, what is in question is what we should do about it, and not just to "save" the metal artefacts by scattering them in personal collections.

Yes degree of recording, but also structure of the mitigation process. To what degree does the way detecting goes on now actually provide any sort of cover to the sites most threatened? Are not the sites and finds scatters detected according to three criteria
1) friendly farmer approached by detectorist and areas of his land available at a given time (ease of access),
2) productive sites (known to produce lots of goodies per hour searching), some/many could be sites already known,
3) Rallies.
Add to that the fact that reporting and recording are voluntary, so 60-80% of finders dont report anything to the PAS, and the 20-40% who do don't necessarily report all that they find of archaeological interest (for various reasons) so even if we were to promote personal collecting as a mitigation strategy, it would be very much a "better than nothing" approach. It is also a cop-out for not facing two important - but admittedly difficult - problems (agricultural damage to rural sites and artefact collecting).


quote: I could of course lecture and distance the very people who are best placed to find and recover. I know which way I should go though. No, here you are letting the people whose main interest is in being allowed to carry on as before hundting for artiefacts tell the heritage "managers" what is what, instead of advocating that we gather data on the effect on which to base policy decisions.


quote: protected in a realistic manner (which could in many cases allow further ploughsoil detecting with recording) well, as I say a cop-out. David, if you step back from this issue, you would have to admit (I hope!) that its not just the metal artefacts in the ploughsoil that consitute what we should be preserving from damage. It may be easiest (by letting the metal detectorists do what they want to do and claim they are doing it for us[everytbody/society]) but is that REAL "archaeological resource management? Or is it just a cop-out, ersatz activity for what we really should be discussing needs to be done with the sites most affected by these processes?

and it is a conservation issue [u]entirely</u> analagous to the orchids example

Paul Barford

[Paul Barford]

A Solution for David

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I'm guessing from your answer that the answer would be yes, if we see a recording regime that can be shown to be extensive. It seems to me the answer is a simple one:
1) BAJR promotes a model of this hobby as "metal detecting" rather than artefagt hantink.
2) BAJR says that by "detecting" these artefacts, hobbyists are saving information about finds which might or might not suddenly undergo destruction in the ploughsoil.

But on the other hand it is argued that:
3) Selective removal of artefacts from artefact scatters representing archaeological sites on the surface will distort them and make their fuller interpretation impossible.
4) Scattering the artefacts thus "rescued" in personal collections will make study of the assemblages from these sites impossible in future.
5) the rate and degree of damage has not been ascertained anywhere, and may not be occurring everywhere to the degree the alarmist pro-detecting propaganda makes out.

The BAJR model then suggests a very easy [u]solution</u>. Since metal detectorists (BAJR says) get their kicks merely out of detecting invisible metal things in the soil, by all means let them go onto the fields and detect them. Let them carefully remove the metal things they have detected from the ploughsoil (only). Let them then record the find, make a full record, digital piccies, and then place them back in the hole at the same depth and in the same place in the ploughsoil, filling the hole in to as near the original consistency of the ploughsoil around it as possible.

In this way, they get their kicks out of "detecting metal", we get our information about where sites are and what finds they contain, and the ploughsoil assemblages remain there intact to to be tapped into again should heritage management concerns make it necessary or desirable to intervene.

The near-universal adoption of the BAJR-inspired model of artefact rescue would have two additional advantages, it would show that metal detectorists are really interested only in metal detecting and not huntink for artsefacts at all, let alone collecting them (thus utterly confounding the critics of the hobby). This would then separate those who are actually in the hobby out of an interest for investigating and protecting the remains of the past from those who are in it for personal gain, I presume it would be OK then even on BAJR Forum to call the ones taking the stuff home (so therefore not real metal detectorists), "artiefakt huntres" or something like that. Secondly if the action was repeated by ten thousand detectorists on the same fields year after year we would build up an unparallelled picture of what really is happening to metal artefact assemblages in ploughsoil. Presumably from time to time (how often?)the same artefact will turn up again and we can follow the degree to which damage is occurring using real examples. If in certain fields excessive and accelerated damage is observed from year to year, then a proper mitigation strategy can be set up for those individual sites (which may of course involve various measures to halt information loss) - but first you have to identify the problem.

In such a scenario, where a careful watch is kept to alert us to the rate of attrition of the evidence in individual conditions, no useful purpose is served by removing metal artefacsts from their horizontal context in the ploughsoil assemblages in conditions where they are not rapidly deteriorating.

That seems a perfectly logical conclusion from the recent disussions on BAJR about "metal detecting". If the hobby really is about "metal detecting" as we are repeatedly told on these pages, then there should be no problem with David and the hobbyists here introducing this model of action as a more general one. Indeed, if metal detecting really IS just about metal detecting, why is this not what is already happening? Why do we have these personal collections of artefacts at all? Unless they were accumulated by those "artecaft huntres" which are not real "metal detectorists" because we are led to believe that it is an altruistic hobby about just "finding", not "keeping"....

Or is the problem that the BAJR model of the hobby is totally misleading, and this really is not just about detecting bits of metal at all?

(Yes, the terminology does matter. It defines a concrete thing, and without having concrete definitions, proper discussion is impossible beyond a very superficial level).

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

I am at a loss. I was under the impression that this thread was about plough damage. It seems to be a valid and interesting discussion, though all I see is it turning into a lesson in how BAJR is misleading and biased, to bang on and on about "artefact hunters" even though it was made very very clear that I did not want this term used in the context. I thought - I may be wrong - that I had made it very very clear that this discussion should continue about Plough damage...... not 32 reasons why a) BAJR is wrong (hey it often is) b) detecting as it stands is wrong and only the glorious PB methodology should be followed.

You forget yourself Paul, you forget where you are - I have tolerated this single minded one track attitude for as long as I can bear. Every discussion you involve yourself in turns to metal detecting and why this discussion, this section, this small part of the process of listening and moving forward, of cooperation and understanding is not valid. You manage to twist licensing archaeologists into metal detecting - even indirectly accusing MDs of altering the Poll results. Plough Damage turns back to only talking about metal detecting - or should I say Artefact Hunting.

I have protected robust and honest debate - it is what I thought would be a hallmark of BAJR. We have had decent arguments in this and other sections.. and these have resulted in people listening and understanding. Archaeology has explained its stance (BAJR is more than just me you know and many do not agree with my personal views) Tom Wilson came up with a very interesting reply, and even though he agreed with many of your points, you dismissed him


quote:I dont know why you lot think I was born yesterday, but I am well aware of this kind of work (there's some in Poland too you might not know about), but that is not the point I was making about the "Artefdact hundting as Rescue model". No you are wrong that "only a long term project" would produce useful results. But I really can no longer be bothered to clarify, its obviously a waste of tuime(sic) to attempt that here. We can discuss it off list if you like.

Beamo quite rightly tells us off and then produces a well written post
About the fuzzy logic of collections and distribution – written in such a way that illuminated and was not seen as aggressive, in fact that post spawned no vicious thread combat.


My reply to Beamo’s telling off is to write


quote:I have yet to see one answer to direct questions concerning Pauls motivation, valid questions given the known history of what Paul feels on this subject.

However.. Beamo is right. and hostile should be replaced by helpful. My Chiropractor told me the other week that holstility towards me should not be seen as the fault of others.. I should ask.. what have I done to bring it on me... I should ask everyone to consider that.

Beamo notices that I take the middle ground, and so end up shelled by both sides... though I can see the no-mans-land turning into a middle ground that contains more and more people... one day the opposing sides will be mute... as only through full discussion, listening AND hearing what people say will the needed changes come about.

Thanks Beamo.. I consider my wrist slapped and rightly so... Moderator Moderated!

And your reply? After I have agreed that I have rightly been hostile – that we should all think about what we say and write, that we should calm down and listen to each other?


quote:I ask direct questions about a direct effect on the archaeological resource, and all we get back from the pro-artefact hunting lobby are the evasive non-answers and constant return to ad personam arguments with which they try to cover up the fact that they have no answers.

My home address, skin colour, "social position", employment history, sexual proclivities, physical disabilities or whatever have NO BEARING on what I am asking and opionins I am expressing about the current status of artefact hunting in the UK.

Middle ground David? I think not. It seems to me that your position on the artefact issue is clearly defined. Your consistent approach to the opinions of people who ask awkward and difficult questions and have divergent opinions about artefact hunting demonstrate unequivocally what it is.

Paul Barford

Corrine, asks a question, which you ignore apart from an oblique reference to god in the forest. She asks politely again for you to answer and is ignored again… she never did get an answer, as I suspect this would stand in the way of the juggernaut of your single minded objective.

Well I have to consider this Forum and the need for sensible debate… I can’t spend any more time moderating this … and have to make a hard hard choice. In the end it is my decision – and as such I should have to take it alone. As far as I can see, threads that involve you always end in argument. It could be suggested that others too are involved, though I have checked and seen that a) apologies for wrong doing are swift and b) they normally take place after you have joined a thread. I have found myself drawn into this too many times as well, and found myself acting in a way I would not expect myself to.

You have received two warnings off list and also on list requests for calm and apologies. Even after these repeated requests you have not been able to curb your single minded actions - This latest post does nothing to continue the debate on Plough damage, but is used as a platform to both attack detectorists and BAJR – suggesting that I (as BAJR) am somehow supporting a form of site looting.

Well I have had enough – I would refer you to the AUP below. You have received warnings and to my mind ignored them. You are quite capable of discussion, but utilise it only for one end – which I am sure in your mind is righteous, though for the purposes of the BAJR Forum can only be seen as disruptive.


Admin Staff and Moderators
# Please remember that these people have to devote some of their working day to running this forum. It detracts from their day to day duties.
# They reserve the right to amend, move, lock or delete posts where they deem it necessary to do so.
# The Administrator or Moderator will always advise you why they have moved, amended or deleted your post.
# Deletion of a post is a last resort.
# Banning of a user is also deemed a last resort and will be carried out only after 2 prior warnings have been given and ignored.



I am left with no option but to ban you for 1 month – in the hope that you will understand that I will not tolerate disruption. This same message goes out to all others - I do not want to see any gloating or similar about this action, which in reality I see as a failure of myself to moderate properly.

If anyone wishes to discuss this with me, please contact me off list.


"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu