Detecting Standards

[Steve-B]

What detecting standards, I ask and I am sure you do as well...

There are no standards associated with the hobby of detecting.

The two hobby organisations sport 'Codes of Practice' that are little more than glorified Country Codes.. useless when one thinks of the responsibilities that those practicing the hobby have.


quote: This discussion is not just about your rights to detect where you want. This is MY heritage that is being lost, by bad detectorists AND archaeologists, I don't care who is doing it I want it sorting. If you have looked at any other posts, you will see the struggle BAJR as a whole is having trying to increase standards and implement some guidelines for archaeologists. Why can we not have the same for detectorists?

I whole heartedly agree with rachstebbs here, the reason that I, Gary and Pete post isnt to promote our legal right to detect, or to promote ourselves or our businesses, but to strive to find a way forward where those practicing the hobby realise the responsibility they/we have to the Common Heritage.

I have suggested setting a standard, John1504 tried to shoot it down in flames... on whos authority would I do it, why would anyone bother with it, it would be impossible to police.

Paul Barford posts in respect of artefact hunters private collections, where he goes to great pains to exaplain the fundamental differences between artefact hunters and archaeologists, talk about explaining the obvious... of course we are fundamentally different or we would not be having these discussions, there would not be the need for bridge building and some of us would be better off spending our time more productively than in being an artefact hunter trying to talk to archaeologists and vise versa...

Yes... and all the time we can all too easily post negative replies, nothing is done, even more irreplaceable information is lost and obsticles continue to placed in the way of cooperation.

Me.. I would rather take things a step at a time, take a leaf out of the CBBC..bitesize..

Lets make a start, deal with issues we can resolve first and build from there... one bite sized chunk at a time... amazing how it quickly biulds into a bigger picture.

In dogmatically insisting that each and every isue be dealt with at once, now and in your way.... nothing will be achieved and I believe that those that post in manner, know this and know it will stall any progress, deliberately sabotaging any hope of dialogue.

OK, getting back to standards.... has anyone seen the film with Kevin Costner - Field of Dreams?

Typical Holywood melodrama, but it has a very important message.... when Costner doubts his cause, doubts himself and what he is doing, he recieves one simple message " Build it and they will come".

He has no authority to do so, he cant make people come, why would anyone bother.... why? because it is there thats why.

If it doesnt exist, then as sure as my ass will burn in hell nothing will ever change, build it on the other hand and who knows?

Surely someone within the detecting community has to make the effort... as Gary has said, he, Pete myself and several others have long since been the ones to stick our necks above the parapet and we have taken flack from all sides for our pains.

We sick our necks out to promote recording, promote cooperation, promote 'self determination' for the hobby (which to me means that the hoby gets off its ass and does something for a change), we argue the toss when we have to, whatever..we are there trying to find a way forward for the hobby and never at the expense of the hobby.

Although initially cautious of Davids Detecting Course idea, this is in fact part and parcel of taking the hobby forward, but thats another post.

In summary, someone within the hobby, in spite of obstacles should raise a standard of practice. I propose that Gary, Pete and myself take this task on initially. I propose that we do this on the authority that it our hobby and our heritage too, and if you dont like it, tough, because we intend to do this.

Its a start, Some of us within the hobby are prepared to take their responsibility to all our heritage seriously, some of us are prepared to do this publicly instead of whining behind closed doors. It wont be perfect, it wont cover every concern initially, it will not be harmful to the hobby, but its a start...

Now all I have to do is ask Gary and Pete..

I hope we can count on your constructive support.

[troll]

Huzzah. Most definately on all counts. Standards seem to be the issue across the heritage board. In archaeology today, the nations heritage is thrown to the wolves of competative tendering and to make matters worse, the guidelines in place are optional and not policed.Developers are only required by law to carry out the minimum. In the detecting world, it seems to be the case that much the same conditions prevail.There are those who understand fully the consequences of our collective actions and there are those who are blinded by the profit beast. What I have been arguing for is nothing short of a paradigm shift in the way that our heritage is seen, valued and protected by law-against unscrupulous developers,conniving planning authorities, incompetent and arrogant archaeologists and sh**ehawks.Oh, and a certain website beginning with the letter e. Not much to ask for really. Welcome back sir.Lets play.:D:D:D

[garybrun]

I'm in Steve....
Time to batten down the hatches :face-stir:

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[Steve-B]

Thanks for the welcome back Troll..

Yes lets play...strap yourself in and hold on tight....:D


Great news Gary... now we just need the third Musketeer to get things rolling.....

[Avenging Angel]

Steve one Question for you. Is it true that you are trying to get rid of the NCMD and become the voice of detecting also any one who apposes you on UKDN are hounded of the Forum?

Long live the NCMD and PAS.

[DAZ 1900]

quote:Originally posted by Avenging Angel

Steve one Question for you. Is it true that you are trying to get rid of the NCMD and become the voice of detecting also any one who apposes you on UKDN are hounded of the Forum?

Long live the NCMD and PAS.


Avenging Angel (i suppose a clue to the nature of your prescence here lies in the context of your forum name!!;))

But seriously this is not the place to argue about an issue that affects another forum, this is an Archaeology forum and we are guests here, this issue needs to be discussed in a relevant area.Please if i could urge you to leave this debate for another time and a different place. I am here to promote the hobby i care about and to talk to Academics here in order to give a different view of the hobby instead of the current one that is already in place.

Thanks and Best Wishes:)

Darren

[Avenging Angel]

But Darren has not SteveB who brought the NCMD into this debate?}:)I will respect your wishes for the time being, and see how things move along. Dave.:D

Long live the NCMD and PAS.

[Steve-B]

quote:Steve one Question for you. Is it true that you are trying to get rid of the NCMD and become the voice of detecting also any one who apposes you on UKDN are hounded of the Forum?

Long live the NCMD and PAS.

Way to go Fidel....:D

You flatter me that you think I could get rid of the NCMD... but no it is not true, yes I am very vocal in outlining their short comings as should all responsible detectorists.. they have been fighting for the hobby for the best part of 30 years..fighting and where is the hobby now?... no further along.... instead of fighting, perhaps their combined energies would have been spent in providing education, information and a half respectable code of practice for the hobby... and then perhaps we might all have avoided half the crap that has been flying for a quarter of a century.

I do not intend to become the voice of detecting, I do however hope to be remembered as one of several that had the balls to stand out from the crowd and make a real difference in protecting the hobby and ourr heritage at the same time.

I do intend to be among the first to help raise the standard, alongside others that do not bury their heads in the sand and ignore the responsibilites that we as detectorists have and am proud to do so.

No, I do not intend to hound anyone that offers a reasonable opinion either the same or different to mine....however I do fully recognise those that have no other intention than to make posts that distract us from progressing, from cooperating and from the task we have set ourselves, for what they are and yes I will fight those people all the way.

Now you come on here and in your very first post you start making exactly the kind of comments that are designed to nothing but cause strife and division. Are you one of these people D?

[Avenging Angel]

I am a person who likes his hobby who belongs to an organisation that he respects, and though that organisation has met Many prominent Archaeologists that I respect and they have respect for me and my fellow detectorists. You who have never been a member of the NCMD unless you have joined recently sat back while they worked behind the scenes unpaid and long hours fighting for our hobby. Had they not done that you might not be selling detectors to day, and you have the guile to criticise them. Did you donate to them , know you didn't. So don't criticise what you have never supported. Say what you like on the Forum but leave the NCMD out of it. Dave

Long live the NCMD and PAS.

[troll]

Gentlemen.Whilst I fully recognise that there will be divisions in ideologies between individuals and indeed the various organisations, we all offer our pennysworth on here without dragging other baggage with us.For me, the focus of this thread in particular is the concept that our collective heritage desperately needs codes of practise in place.The question is of course, how do we achieve this? Compromise is the key (in my opinion) and I feel that any progress will only come about through open and non-personal dialogue.Don`t get me wrong-I`ve been guilty of emotional outburst (more so than many) on here and have offended many other subscribers.To my shame, I have to admit that my ignorance was very quickly apparent and further, did not positively contribute to the issues in hand.To underline this- my outbursts meant that no-one was even remotely interested in anything I had to say. On the "crusader" front, individuals on BAJR do not presume to speak on behalf of anyone else.The point is, the more voices that get together-the louder the shout.So to all here-welcome.This is an almost unique opportunity for all of us to learn from eachother and, make progress towards the compromise that is desperately needed.Happy new year to all.:D

[DAZ 1900]

quote:Originally posted by Avenging Angel

But Darren has not SteveB who brought the NCMD into this debate?}:)I will respect your wishes for the time being, and see how things move along. Dave.:D

Long live the NCMD and PAS.


Thanks AA for your post!:),

Whilst i think the subject of the N.C.M.D and Detecting forums should be left for discussion at a different time and place, i feel the subject of the N.C.M.D's guidlines warrent further discussion here albeit in a rational manner! as there are so many newcomers coming in to the hobby i think the current Guidlines should be modernised to include more references on the importance of recording and the importance of context and it's definition this i believe should be at the forefront of N.C.M.D Guidlines, i know the Guidlines already mention the PAS but how about giving the SMR a mention, the SMR is on the frontline of Heritage protection and management and the imformation it contains is a valuable resource for local Archaeology, yet ask any newcomers to the hobby even some Detectorists with a 2 or 3 years under their belts what the SMR is and most would not be able to tell you.I know Steve is critical of N.C.M.D policies and guidlines, he may or may not be a member i don't know but to some degree he is right,N.C.M.D guidlines need to move with the times if we are to continue with the hobby we all care about. "Heritage protection and management" are four little words that are fast becoming a major issue, Archaeology has this entombed in it's beliefs, DEFRA now recognises this and as for Valetta we all know what could happen if this was motioned in this country, Detecting needs to conform if it is to survive, and before anyone asks if i am a member of the N.C.M.D the answer to this is YES!! my membership no is 1716 so as i pay my membership yearly this gives me the right to question if i feel the need.However i do feel there is a need for both organisations but i also feel that Guidlines need to be re-vamped in order to bring us more in line with the modern view of Heritage Management today.Our Heritage is important to us all and we all have pull together to preserve and record the imformation that it contains.


Only my Opinion here!!


Thanks and Best Wishes

Darren

[troll]

If the truth be known, I have been critical of a good few institutions in the past.Yes, I work as an archaeologist and really, I should be supporting the work of our professional institute (IFA) but, I believe that evolution is an ongoing process in our reasonably young discipline.If we were all to simply accept the status quo (archies/MDs) and blindly follow guidelines/standards without questioning their integrity, change would never be on the menu.:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[troll]

Just a thought.....
I wonder if MDs could be considered for affiliate membership of the IFA? Some may be disturbed by such a suggestion but, if this was a reality, MDs would then sign up to agree to adhere to IFA standards and (in some way) would become as equally accountable as their archaeologist counterparts???:D This of course would require IFA guidelines on detecting.....

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Avenging Angel]

Darren I agree with you and I think your opinion is a good one and I am sure that the SMR will be mentioned when the NCMDs guide lines are updated. But SteveB's constant comments are akin to the Nazi's before 2nd world war and the Communist Witch Hunts that swept America in the 50s. AA

Long live the NCMD and PAS.

[troll]

AA- Happy new year. So, in your opinion, what can be done to enhance existing standards or indeed, introduce new ones?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Avenging Angel]

A happy new year to you troll, if you take a look at how some of the MD Clubs in certain parts of Norfolk, Essex and Kent work with the Archaeologists you will have your answer. They treat each other as equals and abide with each others codes and standards. AA

Long live the NCMD and PAS.

[Steve-B]

quote:Darren I agree with you and I think your opinion is a good one and I am sure that the SMR will be mentioned when the NCMDs guide lines are updated. But SteveB's constant comments are akin to the Nazi's before 2nd world war and the Communist Witch Hunts that swept America in the 50s. AA

What a crock of pooh...

Dave, yes I am a member of the NCMD so dont come that one with me and prior to that I have been a long term member of the FID, both organisations that show a deplorable lack of recognition of the responsibilities that they carry..harsh words perhaps, but if you cant take the truth then dont get involved.

This is my hobby as well as my heritage and if I feel that proper service is not being paid to either then I will damn well say so whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

If you are such a loyal member and recognise the responsibilities that you as a detectorist has, then do me the same courtesy that I extended you...answer my questions.

Do you think that the NCMD/FID are doing enough to promote good practice and recording of finds?

As national bodies, do you think either organisation does enough to provide information and education to both new comers and long term members of the detecting community?

Do you think that either organisations published codes of conduct are adequate?

Bear one thing in mind pal, the only reason that I mention NCMD more than the FID is that the FID are now nothing more than insurance brokers, while the NCMD are active politically. While no one would doubt the efforts that the NCMD hjave made over the years, the world has now moved on - some of us are not just out to selfishly fight for the right to detect and damn the consequences... the law already allows us to detect, its now time for the hobby to grow up and face its responsibilities..


Now one final question, have you come on here to actively participate in constructive discussions, or have you come on here to throw your rattle out of the pram because I dont happen to agree that your organisation has done such a hot job over the years in respect of these responsibilities?

[john1504]

After the open-minded attitude shown on the other thread, I'd decided (for me at least) that it wasn't worth the effort of making any further contributions to this debate. However, seeing as Steve-B is making such valiant efforts to pursuade the archaeologists here that there is some substance to what he says, perhaps, in light of the fact that there are many MDs reading this, all of whom have had dealings with Steve in the past, he would care to explain the religious experience he has had with respect to Archaeologists, the PAS, recording etc. (Little else would explain the sudden u-turn). This sites Host is also aware of how Steve has treated these people in the past and should not, therefore, be surprised that someone has decided to voice his/her frustrations.

So before the righteous indignation pours forth, let us all know why, after the vitriolic attacks you've made against people who dared to question your motives (especiall with regards to the UKDFD), anyone should listen to you now?

For those archaeologists who are involved here, please realise that the questions I've asked are important to the debate. This isn't a case of anyone throwing rattles or spitting dummies out. If you want the co-operation of responsible detectorists (excluding Steve, Gary and Pete) then you should be aware that there are 'issues' which have not been settled because Steve and his 'friends' banned all those who questioned them from the forum concerned.

My only interest in all of this is to ensure that Steve and his friends are not allowed, on a public forum, to give the impression that the NCMD has done nothing.

[Petethedig]

I'm quite surprised John that you think I have never given credit where it was due where the NCMD was and is concerned!

I have always given it, but that being said as a fully paid up NCMD member are you saying I cannot have my own opinion about my organisation?

Any organisation that basically ignores at least one third of its members (those who are not in detecting clubs) would find itself open to criticism in any part of the world!

If you are going to mention my or indeed others names then please at least get the facts right please!

This is looking more and more like the PAS/Britarch sites all the time. Maybe another wasted opportunity to do some good.

Evil to him who thinks evil.

[troll]

Rightyho.Here it is. To all concerned. Please continue the cat fight over who/which organisation/personal grievences etc somewhere else.I think I`ve made it fairly clear what this thread is all about.This "he said/she said" youth club garbage is getting us all nowhere fast.It`s like listening to teenagers argue over football teams.Once again, how can we move forward with guidelines and standards that will move the heritage industry/hobbies into the 21st Century? Anything that appears on this thread that does`nt fall within those frames of reference-I will take enormous pleasure in deleting.:)

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Petethedig]

Couldn't agree more Troll, this is exactly whats not needed here. Thanks.

Evil to him who thinks evil.

[garybrun]

To moderator's and Badger.

As Petethedig states this is looking once again like the PAS and Britarch state of affairs and does neither side no good.
Are we going to gain ground here or are we just playing cat and mouse as usual?

John & Dave....
What ever our disagreements or thoughts about one another lets try and keep the subject on track. There is one thing I think we can all agree is on is that recording is the way to go as many of us have publicly stated that. John you represent the NCMD and could also have a lot to contribute to the thread, granted I know you cant make policy etc... but you can put forward a view.

Can we work on a minimum standard of recording and a statement on why it is good to record and what it gives to our heritage.


Trol... when it comes to detectorists being subject to IFA guidelines on detecting I would suggest this is a no go area. Let detectorist make their own standards... but with archeo input or this ship will sink as soon as its launched.




http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[john1504]

The point I make is that no standards are forthcoming. Certain people have shown a knack for slagging off other peoples effort, having not lifted a finger to help. Then, when it suits them, deciding to make a public outcry against it. Yet, when asked about their own standards, remain suspiciously silent.

This is what was to be expected from these characters. I have agreed with Pete and the others numerous times regarding the shortfalls of the NCMD and what they can do about it. Yet we still see the same rubbish being spouted by them.

So let's try a different tack. What standards do any of you, (archaeologists excepted because they have made it clear what they want) propose would be acceptable to DETECTORISTS. Especially standards proposed by you three?

Before you press the delet button Troll, I would ask that you consider that there are quite a number of detectorists following this thread, to see where it's going. If you start censoring it at this stage because something has been said you don't like then don't be too surprised at the outcome.

[troll]

Good morning gentlemen and a happy and prosperous new year to you all.
Perhaps, MD standards could be built in line with IFA standards? I suppose that all I am suggesting is that, as the IFA are concerned with the promotion of standards in archaeology and, seeing as responsible MDs work with/alongside archaeologists on occasion-would`nt this:
1.streamline joint endeavours
2.bring MDs "in from the cold" so to speak
3.provide accepted standards across the board
4.provide responsible MDs with a formal standing in heritage endeavours
5.bring accountability on line with that of archaeologists

Of course I accept without reservation that any such IFA MD standards would need in depth dialogue and compromise.I also feel that it may be counter-productive and indeed-a bit of a logistical nightmare if the archaeology itself is seen in very different ways by people with an interest in it.Lots of different guidelines/standards could be akin to two teams of footballers arriving on the pitch bringing seperate rules for the same match with them.As archies have their own standards and guidelines in the form of the IFA ones-perhaps we could meet MDs in the middle and open dialogue between the IFA and you guys in an attempt to level the playing field?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[john1504]

Excellent suggestion Troll. I can only see one 'minor' problem with detectorists being members of the IFA...:D

I don't know if the IFA has AGMs etc. But if they do, what do you think the impact would be if several thousand detectorists decided to make a contribution?.....:D:D:D

[troll]

John-tiz not "something I don`t like" at all. Tiz just that I hope to open frank dialogue starting with today.Not yesterday.Yesterday simply does`nt exist. I`m really not interested in the history of MD standards anymore than I am in the history of antiquarians. The point here is that BAJR can host open and frank dialogue with clearly defined goals that ultimately will potentially change things for the better.We simply don`t have the time, the space or the interest in peripheral and irrelevent material.
Actually, I`d quite like to see all professional archies turn up at an IFA conference! Truth is, we can`t afford it! Seriously though John, we all have an interest in our collective heritage-archies and MDs.Lets work together.If anyone owns the heritage then it is our children and their children.What we do with it from here on in will shape their future identities forever.:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Steve-B]

quote:Rightyho.Here it is. To all concerned. Please continue the cat fight over who/which organisation/personal grievences etc somewhere else.I think I`ve made it fairly clear what this thread is all about.This "he said/she said" youth club garbage is getting us all nowhere fast.It`s like listening to teenagers argue over football teams.Once again, how can we move forward with guidelines and standards that will move the heritage industry/hobbies into the 21st Century? Anything that appears on this thread that does`nt fall within those frames of reference-I will take enormous pleasure in deleting.

Troll with respect, I tried to walk away from this site due to exactly the same kind of posting that comes from the real trolls that have noi intention of progressing beyond the pond.

I cam back and started a new thread in response to your call to do so.

The thread was never inteneded to be what you term as a heaaid/she said cat fight./..

It was an attempt to recognise an area fopr improvement and to do something tangible to resaolve it... this cannot be done without highlighting the faults in the hobby as a whole and this includes its leading representative body... if AA has a problem with this then this is his problem alone.

If we are going to create an omelette then wwe are going to have to crack a few eggs and this means recognising the hobbies shortcomings... if the NCNMD has set itself up as the hobbyes represenattive body this means making an honest assesment of them... as I have said many times no one would detract from the hard work they have put in to the hobby over the years, but they/we the FID have all been amiss in accpeting our responsibilities.

Now I take it AA that you are going to totally ignore the questions that I posed to you and can only conclude that you have come along here to disrupt any attempt to do something positive.

Now Troll, my intention was to start a thread in respect of setting standards for the hobby, although the NCMD are part of the original equation they are not central to this issue and I am not interested in it ending up as a NCMD anti/pro thread....

So yet again I leave this thread in the hands of the disruptive trolls.

[troll]

Good day. I completely accept that the status quo has to be considered in detail and, that a stock-taking of organisations involved are a part of that process.After all, we here on BAJR have done likewise regarding the organisations involved in our little world. I do thank you for coming back and starting this thread.Perhaps I worded my posting incorrectly however, I have found that a dialogue bereft of emotional input on all sides produces a better ommelette! Really, I hope for a cat-fight free environment and invite all to the table.Thanks to all on this thread for your patience-I`m sure that we will eventualy adopt a common language!:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Steve-B]

quote:This site is (for me) for and about archaeology.Whilst I had every intention of taking a full part in the excellent dialogue offered by Steve-B,I have no intention of continuing this garbage offered by whoever 1504 is or, has clearly been misled to believe he/she is.

You mean as unemotional as your post Troll...

Come on, we both know that any chance of a decent debate, that has the possibilities of producing something more concrete than words will be scuppered with muppets like this posting... as is their sole intention......enjoy your omelette.;)

My posts were not emotive, I just presented facts, if you doubt these then pop along to the organisations respectoive sites, check out their codes of practices, educational information etc...if I am worng, if you or anyone else is satisfied with the level of provisions then fine, I am happy to be so.

IOf on the otherhand you are not, then perhaps we can accept that there is a need for what i orginally outlined in this thread and move on to something more constructive than the NCMD/FId fan clubs...

[john1504]

I rest my case. The exact same reaction happens each time they are questioned on their motives or ideas. I don't know why the questions are so difficult to answer. If, Steve, Gary, and Pete as so sure of their ground, why do they always resort to these diversionary tactics? If half the amount of energy wasted spitting dummies out was utilised in dealing with these questions, we'd be much further along the line.

Stop beating about the bush Steve and tell us what 'standards' you propose instead of waiting for others to come up with the ideas.

[BAJR Host]

Anyhoo....

As I have already suggested a Detectorist led guide to detecting document.. written by detectorists and archaeologists... this could also lead to acceptable guidance for detecting... with standards and help to ensure that all parties are happy.

Based on but enhanced from the FID / NCMD code.

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

quote:Based on but enhanced from the FID / NCMD code.

You mean from the pick up your litter, close the gate, fill in your holes and smile at everyone you meet code David?

:D

[Avenging Angel]

Careful Steve you are not a foul mouthed Mod on here who is obsessed with other mens body parts[:0] Please bear with me and I will answer your questions but don't ever call me Pal as I am no pal of yours. FID does not interest me but yes I do think that the NCMD could do more and believe me they will do more to promote the good practise of recording of finds which they have always done. As a national body NCMD work closely with the Flo's and if you ever attended any club meetings you would find out just what they do for educating new and old members alike. I think that the NCMD code of conduct needs revamping.I have come on here to actively take part, But all the time you attack the NCMD I will be on your back. Happy New Year every one. Now lets have a proper discussion without slagging of the true people who fight for the rights of the detectorist. Dave.

Long live the NCMD and PAS.

[Steve-B]

I have no doubts that will try to be on my back as you put it dave, I am well aware of the methods that the NCMD and their reps employ on those that dare question them.

[john1504]

Still not answering the question....:D:D[8D]

[Petethedig]

John I have already set out the standards I work by with my detecting and as far as I'm concerned and you still choose to rubbish me on a public forum. If you have something to say to me personally them use the email button please.

I've never been afraid of any debate, but you seem to want to try and push buttons to get reactions mate. Like I said this is getting more like PAS/Britarch all the time. Its a shame you don't have the decorum that Clive had especially as your a NCMD regional rep.
I have never got personal with you so please don't start silly games with me mate!

Evil to him who thinks evil.

[Avenging Angel]

One more Question Steve. Are you on here to promote your Business [?]because reading through your posts you are doing a good job. Promoting your business that is. Dave.[:0]

Long live the NCMD and PAS.

[john1504]

quote:Like I said this is getting more like PAS/Britarch all the time.

And we all know who the characters were there.

I have never had any problems with you Pete, as you well know. But if you insist on allying yourself with Steve, and standing by while he tries to rubbish the NCMD in a public and unrelated Forum, despite the discussions we have had, then you should be prepared to take the good with the bad.

In all honesty, I expected more from you, but you seem to have forgotten most of the discussions from both PAS and the UKDN. I have a great deal of it copied if you'd like me to post it here, just to refresh your memory. Particularly your views on PAS.

[BAJR Host]

However .... we digress

What would a 'good' Code of Conduct include??

recording 'significant finds' with PAS and UKDFD?

complilation of 'finds sheets' that can be made available to SMRs? (with caveats on use?)

More contact with County Level Archaeologists? - say a once a month meeting with clubs to discuss finds?

Formalised Standards of practice to use detectorists on archaeolgoical sites - remuneration for time, travel etc...

This is a site where we forget our differences and find suitable and workable .... ready for the word..... compromise

This could be the New Year BAJR resolution...

so comments and additions, corrections to the above please.

[:I]

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

quote:One more Question Steve. Are you on here to promote your Business because reading through your posts you are doing a good job. Promoting your business that is. Dave

I have never raised the issue of business in any discussions...others raised them and I have replied briefly.

Let me make one thing absolutely clear, do you best do bad mouth go ahead I can take it...

Rubbish my business in any way and I will sue you..

Be extremely careful what you say...is that clear...Mr Host...it may pay for an uninterested party to issue warning here..

[john1504]

I would have thought you guys would have decided that threatning people with legal action was not a good idea. Seems some people are slow to learn.

For those who may be interested...Gary Brun threatned to sue me and PAS because of a question I asked. Nothing was forthcoming, even though my solicitor is still waiting for details to be sent.

But this is just another ploy to avoid answering my question. So come on guys, let's see this proposed standard in black and white, so we can all read it, and if it is suitable I can assure you of my full support in promoting it.

[Steve-B]

For those interested, we have highlighted a need, ome that all responsible detctorists would agree to. We have stated an intent to persue this and when we have a working template we will publish it.

John, you over estimate your own self importance, your support or promotion are not sought and are of no interest, we only seek to recruit progressive and responsible detectorists that can see further than their own wants and needs.

Yet again, you have managed to denegrate would could have been a productive discussion into what is nothing more than another episode in your personal vendetta against any that show a modicum of indpendence of thought...it does beg the question as to whether this is one of your duties as an NCMD Representative?

By the way, Happy New Year to all on BAJR.

[troll]

I`ve been about as polite as I possibly can be.Already I`m bored sh*tless with this pubescent display.I`ve tried allsorts.Tell you what, when you all finally grow up and take a blind bit of notice of what others on this site have to offer, we might listen.Until then, I`m not remotely interested.Well done.You`ve done it agin.All yours Mr Hosty-I really could`nt care less anymore.[xx(]

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Steve-B]

Thanks for that Trol.. I came back on your request to yet again be exposed to this concerted attack..I take it that this was just a set up then?

Thanks BAJR...

[archae_logical]

Can we please forget the testosterone and talk about the standards. This discussion started out well but once again has descended into the usual mess. Come on guys this is important.
How about:

1 No detecting below plough soil level unless under archaeological supervision.
2 Always report your finds with the necessary location.

Can we all add something or a comment on the above and see where it gets us?

At least this is constructive even if you don't agree with me

E

[john1504]

There are, at present, discussions between the NCMD and the CBA aimed at finding a code of practice which detectorists can follow that takes into account some of the misgivings of archaeologists.

The lack of firm standards is something which the NCMD has long accepted that there is a need for. This is also known to Steve-B, GaryBrun, and Petethedig, which is why I get a bit frustrated with them when they harp on about the lack of standards.

There has also been a long, on-going discussion about this among detectorists, as the following links will show. This particular discussion took place on the PAS forum. The contributor known as 'guest' is Steve-B, who quit the PAS forum because he considered the Moderators of the forum to be anti-detectorist when they refused to ban Paul Barford and Nigel Swift for asking too many awkward questions:

http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=305&highlight=cba

http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=325&highlight=cba

http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=333&highlight=cba

http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=320&highlight=cba

http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=341&highlight=cba

http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=330&highlight=cba

http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=885&highlight=cba

http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=355&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=mike+heyworth&start=0


As for the discussion here; It would seem that Steve, Gary and Pete don't actually have any format for a standard which we can all work to. Fine, we now have a blank sheet we can work on. Once everyone has read the links I've posted here, perhaps we can continue the discussion in the New Year.

[troll]

Thanks to all.Just to put the record straight.I did`nt need to set anyone up.I had hoped for dialogue but instead found this forum to be hijacked for personal battles.Lost interest.Sorry.I hope someone else can keep this thread going-as arch_aeological quite rightly points out-this is important.I`m just not willing to waste my time listening to personal tennis anymore.Good will to all.As an aside, for the MDs out there following this thread-please, give your opinions here.Its clear that progress won`t be forthcoming whilst personal grievences muddy the water.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[BAJR Host]

New Year everyone...

Blank Sheets all round... no more on this thread other than thrashing out acceptable standards... look at the CBA stuff... discuss.... and lets gets this ball rolling...

Another day another WSI…

[garybrun]

Most finds are found within the first 6"-9".
The larger the item.. the deeper the detector will pick it up, add also into the equation wet and dry ground for conductivity. So a piece of plough I would expect to be detected at the depths you state.

Different detectors have different depth capabilities and the frequency of the detector and its coil size all effect the equation.

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[troll]

Of course it goes without saying that the depths at which subsoils are encountered vary depending upon geological/pedological precepts and the mechanical actions of man. How can we set a minimum allowable intrusive depth for MDs when this varies oftentimes from one field to another even within the same areas? Surely, detecting and fieldwalking should by definition be exclusively restricted to the top/ploughsoils-anything else should be left to archaeologists to investigate and record.I`m not even remotely convinced by the 6-9 inches argument.MDs carrying entrenching tools and long-handled spades seems to suggest otherwise.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[BAJR Host]

Which I would guess where the offer of training would come in.... in fact it would be very good for both detectorists and diggers.. after all, we all have to learn about how to recognise topsoil / subsoil boundaries... and just when to stop a JCB from accidentally removing an interface horizon (or in one case... not one... but 4 cists.... " er.... I thought it was a bit more stoney" was the reply... sigh)

but seriously.... this is a good point and one that can only be dealt with by all of us edaling with the seemingly simple question.... how deep is topsoil?

Another day another WSI…

[mercenary]

The answer to that question would seem to be 30cm (almost 12 inches) in soil that has been ploughed using modern equipment. Deeper if potatoes have been planted in the field.

So if most finds come from the top 6-9 inches they should be within the topsoil, and with a margin for safety as well.

I imagine pasture could have shallower topsoil and fields exposed to wind or water erosion definitely will have.

[mercenary]

I hope the metal detectorists haven't given up on this forum. I for one was learning loads.

Any chance the arguments of the past can be avoided by MD's posting anonymously?

[Hugh]

I would expect that a chat with the farmer could give you a rough idea of the depth of ploughsoil.
On the hills here it is often only 9" because the bedrock trashes the plough, or fills the soil with stones, if the farmer tries to go deeper.
On the flats the ploughsoil is much deeper, presumably due to potato ploughing.
The farmer will know this and will be able to tell anyone that asks. I have had interesting chats with farmers about ploughing archaeological sites, but the details of these are best left for another thread.

quote:Originally posted by troll

I`m not even remotely convinced by the 6-9 inches argument.


I have been metal detecting for around 20 years, 1 - 2 days per week. Only once did I ever dig below the disturbed in all that time. I have always used top of the range detectors. I also consider myself a fairly competent detectorist, as my finds tend to prove.

Every now and then I'll dig a large object at 10-12 inches. I would say the average depth of my finds is approx 5 inches. Sometimes deeper but more often close to the top, as less time spent digging, more time finding.

People who do not use a metal detector can only "imagine" how they actually work, they are far from the idea that many archaeologists (or others) have of them, I know cos I've worked with archaeologists for years.

This is the truth how I see it, it has not been invented to try defend or justify what I do.

[troll]

Greetings Swinger and welcome.Thank you for your comments...wonder if I could persuade you to offer an opinion on standards in detecting? As a response to your comments-is it the case then that MDs stop themselves if a signal appears to be a strong one, non-ferrous and deeper than the 12 inch maximum you offer? I have no issue with people using metal detectors to sift topsoil-it`s the bit about "digging" that worries me.Thankyou for joining in Swinger, much appreciated.Happy new year!:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[drpeterwardle]

The depth that a metal detector can detect metal is covered on the Bradford course or was 25 years ago. The depth of detection is a function of a number of things including the size of the object. There is thus no "safe" depth. The power of the detector falls off at the six power of depth and thus will only a relatively shallow depth in any event.

I think it might help the understanding of all of this if a recent Bradford graduate or one of the detectorist could explain the physics behind all of this.

This is a short response before I go to the pub - I am in the middle of three days on the road and 600 miles so time is short to start looking things up.

Peter Wardle

[sukisal]

Hello all, I have registered on this forum to just give a little support to my passion for the past 17 years. Metal detecting.
Some of you will know me, I don't pocess the knowledge on certain subjects that might come up on this thread, and will not pretend to.
But I will try and just give my simple point of view and opinion on a hobby I am deeply commited to.
Firstly I will say that I detect with a simple machine, a Lobo supertraq, my ears are the most important accessory as they are tuned into every different tone this machine gives on the different metals.
If I get a signal that sounds like iron, I will dig a small section out and if the signal does not improve then I leave it, I do noy ever dig deep. I find no need as I always think the next seasons ploughing will bring up any deeper artifacts, if not then next time.
All my artifacts are recorded by my FLO in Suffolk.
I am a member of the NCMD through my detecting club.
I will say now that all these guidlines and ideas of teaching new detectorists seem like a good idea, but there already are guidlines etc.
Only responsible detectorists will actively seek out any guidlines, or indeed obtain any teaching. Yes it is a good idea and for the new 'virgin' detectorist would be great and I am sure they would actively seek it.
Is a bit like your average newly qualified young driver, a 'gary boy racer' new on the road will listen to know one, he knows it all and will do it exactly how he wants to do it, unless PC Nastyman is about.
But the likes of some will actively seek more info and take great interest in gaining experience and maybe doing more classes to teach them safe driving.
Get what I am trying to say here?
And after all I have never been given any guidlines or teaching, I used comman sense, as I am sure most detectorists use.
I know there are archaelogists that think all of us should be banned, but in my simple thinking why can't we have a decent conversation, I have had a fantastic relationship with my FLO's and the archaeologists I have met, they have never talked down to me unlike what I have experienced on certain forums.
No need for it, I have a passion for history, so do they.
Oh dear this has gone on a bit, so go on fire with all guns....I can take it, I am a lady detectorist!!;)

quote:Originally posted by troll
is it the case then that MDs stop themselves if a signal appears to be a strong one?


No, in my experience on detecting ploughsoil, I just don't get signals that deep.

I'd be interested to hear how often other detectorists dig below the disturbed - really.

[sukisal]

[quote]Originally posted by sukisal


Firstly I will say that I detect with a simple machine, a Lobo supertraq, my ears are the most important accessory as they are tuned into every different tone this machine gives on the different metals.
If I get a signal that sounds like iron, I will dig a small section out and if the signal does not improve then I leave it, I do noy ever dig deep. I find no need as I always think the next seasons ploughing will bring up any deeper artifacts, if not then next time.



Well I just answered that one in the above post:)

[troll]

Greetings lady detectorist and welcome to BAJR!I hear what you say loud and clear.I have to applaud the FLO peeople and saw some great work between MDs and archies in Dorset a few years ago.Between them, they opened up a whole new series of research directions and agendas simply through working together (not against).The part of MD as a hobby that I would like to see legislated against adequately is nighthawking and to an extent, MDing purely for monetary gain.I think that what we are driving at here is that it is high time that our collectively owned heritage is seen in a very different light.That goes for us archies as well as the MDs out there.Welcome Lady Detectorist-giz more words please!:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[sukisal]

Thankyou very much!!
Yes I understand what you are saying, but maybe when us responsible detectorists are completely segregated in the archies (sorry to abbreviate but my finger is getting sore!):D eyes from the night hawkers and treasure hunters, then we can get somewhere.
After all, who knows better the ways in which this lot work? They go about their 'business' coming into contact with responsible detectorists, and I continually battle to win the respect of land owners who have had an uninvited visit.
Maybe a draft leaflet on how these low lifes go about their 'work' would be helpful, but then this will never stop, and no amount of dectorist knocking will stop it will it?
And teaching or leaflets won't stop it either.
If they are buying a detector to earn them money then they are not interested in that side, and indeed do not even go onto the PAS site or any forums, they are just not interested in that side of things.
I know cause I have met a good few.
I will add they are in the minority, but they are plentiful, mmmm that doesn't really make sense does it?:D

[troll]

Perfik sense to me Lady! Archaeologists can be guilty of cringing when they hear the word "detectorist"-much the same when some archaeologists hear the name "Time Team"! Although the law as it stands is fairly useless in stopping nighthawks, one law is useful.A certain section of the Criminal Justice Act (1994) sets out the offence of aggrivated trespass.Problem is, one has to catch em` at it.In law-nighthawking is simply theft in the sense that the act is intended to permanently deprive the owner(landowner) of their property.On moral grounds, I see MDs who detect for monetary value as guilty of theft from the entire nation.Not sure what can be done about nighthawks any more than I am about burglars really.No amount of education will stop thieves.The way forwards has to be an open line of communication between all of us-MDs and archies alike!:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[sukisal]

And the trouble is when they are caught nothing much happens does it?
The law is an ass!! I have heard them say, well the worst that can happen is our detector being confiscated, we will just use another one of the many we have at our disposal.
Worth the risk, chances are they won't be caught, if they are....well not much to dter them is it?
I have heard tales of them being chased with shotguns and dogs, by the landowners or farm workers, all these tales are proudly conveyed to me, with great amusement and not the slightest reservation about the next night hunt.
But I don't want to give the impression that the countryside is throbbing with nighthawkers, as I say they are in the minority, but that minority leave a huge impression that affects the likes of me.B)
So what I would like to put over as well, is that some the land that me and my detecting partner are allowed to detect on has been night hawked in the past, but now it is left alone as we are on there.
So the problem is gone from that site, and what is left is all recorded. the land owner is happy, and our PAS is happy.:D

[sukisal]

And I will just add before I get someone try to pull me on this,
I do not know these night hawkers personally, I have met them at one or two metal detecting rallies.
They are just people I have had a conversation with and seem to like to boast as we are two lady detectorists out of many fellas at these rallies, and they seem to relish telling us this as it seems they think it is something to be proud of.
We pull them up on it and make no bones of telling them exactly what we think of their activities.
And we are not bothered further by them.
Maybe some of it is made up.

[archae_logical]

It seems there are plenty of responsible MDers out there. All we need now is for everybody to join together - MDers, archies, heritage workers - to spread the message of the importance of heritage to everyone. Surely that way we all get what we want - heritage treated with the respect it deserves. :D

With people like sukisal, swinger, bajr and troll etc. how can we fail. ;)

E

[BAJR Host]

You are right... by joining together... we will not stop the NightHawks, but we can make their life difficult...

and I agree Sukisal (ps... nice to see you here) once we stop confusing MDs with Nighthawks and Archaeologists with Time Team we can and will work together more comfortably

:D

Another day another WSI…

[Avenging Angel]

Some good and sensible Posts from Swinger and Sukisal no unpleasant remarks against any organisations to do with metal detecting, just plain detecting facts and figures. Lets hope it stays this way so we can make some headway on these discussions. So come on all you level headed detectorists put your views across and no more fighting against one and other. A Happy New Year to all. AA

Long live the NCMD and PAS.

[BAJR Host]

Viva la cooperation!

Another day another WSI…

[troll]

Agreed!Lets do it.:D:D:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

quote:Originally posted by Avenging Angel

no unpleasant remarks against any organisations to do with metal detecting..
Long live the NCMD and PAS.


I have plenty of unpleasant suggestions for certain organisations to improve themselves but doubt this to be the place.

Does anyone know the link for the NCMD forum? I know the PAS has closed shop but hopefully not the NCMD.

[BAJR Host]

Exactly right swinger.... here is not the place for unpleasant remarks from anyone... constructive criticism allowed, but only if followed up by reasonable suggestions.
;)

Another day another WSI…

[Historyman]

Hi, my name is Historyman and I come from Deal in Kent. There are two Metal Detecting clubs in the Deal area and many more in other parts of Kent who are called upon to help out at Digs by D.A.G (Dover Archaeologist Group and many more who need our services. I for instance helped out the Wessex Archaeologist Group on an Iron Age Dig near Ashford, We are all signed up under the K.A.M.S.U Banner. I have found that we are trusted and treated as equals by the majority of the Archaeologists and we soon win the remainder over. The club I am with The Royal Phoenix and an other club The White Cliffs support D.A.G by making donations of cash and tools to them. All in all I would say that Kent is paving the way for Detectorists and Archaeologists to understand and work together. Ron.

[Corinne Mills]

quote:Originally posted by Swinger

I'd be interested to hear how often other detectorists dig below the disturbed - really.




I dont dig any deeper than the depth of my spade at all and most of my finds are in the top 10 cm or so of the plough soil




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

[Historyman]

Please ignor this post, as it came out wrong.

[Historyman]

quote:Originally posted by venicone

[quote]Originally posted by Swinger

I'd be interested to hear how often other detectorists dig below the disturbed - really.




I dont dig any deeper than the depth of my spade at all and most of my finds are in the top 10 cm or so of the plough soil

Co I think you will find that most responsable Metal Detectorists don't dig deeper than the depth of they spades. Also most of us carry spades to save bending down to much. Ron.

[sukisal]

Helllloooo well you asked for some detectorists, here we are.....
:D:D:D:D

[sukisal]

I like little fluffy white bunny rabbits, what do you all like:face-approve:

[mercenary]

Good to have you aboard! The messageboard's been a bit quiet lately, maybe everyones on post Christmas holiday. Feel like I need one myself.

RE: Bunnies. Like them in theory, but I'm not so keen on what they do to archaeological remains. Do you think we could get them to stick to the topsoil.;)

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary

....RE: Bunnies. Like them in theory, but I'm not so keen on what they do to archaeological remains. Do you think we could get them to stick to the topsoil.;)


Send in the dogs and then shoot them :D


Are there any parallels with detectorists and bunny rabbits[:o)]

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[the invisible man]

Bunny rabbits, whether white and fluffy or not, should have a responsible governing body that issues standards and guidance for all bunny-related activities. This body must actively police all bunnies to ensure that they adhere to the standards - perhaps the inspectors could be called burrow surveyors?? (a slight London accent helps...)

Obviously bunnies should apply for SMC before burrowing on any SAM, submited a thorough Burrow Design and Method Statement. All work to be to Currant Standards...

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by the invisible man

Bunny rabbits, whether white and fluffy or not, should have a responsible governing body that issues standards and guidance for all bunny-related activities. This body must actively police all bunnies to ensure that they adhere to the standards - perhaps the inspectors could be called burrow surveyors?? (a slight London accent helps...)



Very bunny.... (said with a northern accent without your teeth in)

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[sukisal]

And they look so innocent;)

[BAJR Host]

Froth Froth.... KILl em aLL froth

er sorry...

anyhoo.... Here is what exists already on the CBA site... what do you think? What could be added or edited?

as a starter ..
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/cba/factsht2.shtml

starter for guidlines

* avoid protected sites, or land in their near vicinity (because areas of archaeological sensitivity and scheduling boundaries may not always correspond)
* obtain permission from the landowner
* report your finds, so that they can be identified and the information they provide can pass into the historical record
* report possible treasure finds to the Coroner for the district in which they are made
* work on ground already disturbed, within plough depth
* seek expert help if you discover something large, below the ploughsoil, a concentration of material, or otherwise unusual
* call the police, and notify the landowner, if you find any live explosives.

Bear in mind that digging for objects can destroy archaeological evidence. There is no standard formula for assessing this. In some parts of the country, for instance, topsoils are thin, and archaeological remains may be close to the surface. If you suspect that an object is undisturbed in its primary context (eg in a container, or below the ploughsoil) leave it where it is and call for archaeological assistance.

# Report finds to a local museum, archaeologist or your Sites and Monuments Record
# Always work with permission of the landowner. (When seeking consent, or asking for detailed archaeological information, you may find it useful to offer a reference, for example from your own club (if you belong to one) or someone of appropriate standing who knows you well.)
# Limit searching to ground already disturbed
# Report finds to a local museum, archaeologist or your Sites and Monuments Record
# Tell the Coroner if you find anything which may qualify as treasure
# Don't detect on protected sites, or land known to contain archaeological remains.

Another day another WSI…

[Historyman]

# Limit searching to ground already disturbed

Does this mean that we can,t detect on Pasture? If so then there must be a guide line to whether it has been ploughed or not. HM

[BAJR Host]

Hmmm.... fair point... define disturbed.... disturbed in the past? How long ago? And if search is confined to disturbed - how will new sites be found?

Perhaps

Special care should be exercised on locations which have remained undisturbed for over 350 years (just to exclude the reorganisation of agriculture) where finds should be located on a plan/ GPS location.

Another day another WSI…

[sukisal]

Right, that seems good bajr, but I am very sure that most of those guidlines are already easily available to any new detectorist.
But I can tell you what isn't.
Some sort of guide to tell them (local to the individual detectorist) where they can find their FLO, contact no. etc.
A web address for the PAS site.
What exactly a Scheduled Ancient Monument is and any sensitive areas
Maybe even a local guide as to where they are not allowed, where they should steer clear of etc.
NCMD contact info
I know this seems basic to us but I think us detectorists should put ourselves back to when we first started detecting, and I for one did not know where my Archaeoligical unit was, what a SAM was, etc.
I had to hunt, contact seasoned detectorists, and even searched out a lovely old lady who field walked in my village to tell me what was what.
I didn't have a computer then, but a lot are not on line, I know because most of my detecting friends(almost all) do not go on a computer
Just a thought, maybe not easily done, but for the ones who want to know, we should catch in their infancy in this hobby, bad habits die hard.....;)

[BAJR Host]

Sounds fair enough.... I know some archaeologists who believe that the ballpoint pen was a step too far in communication technology!! ;))

Anyway.... what you suggest is a good idea.... regional Guides with all the info you need. Now....how would you get hold of it.... and how often would it need updating?

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Paul Barford posts in respect of artefact hunters private collections, where he goes to great pains to exaplain the fundamental differences between artefact hunters and archaeologists, talk about explaining the obvious... Well although artefact hunters may dislike it when I try to get to the bottom of something (or dismiss the concerns I raise as “obvious” as in the very first post in this thread), it seems to me to be an obvious point that before setting out to discuss “detecting standards” it would be helpful to define what they are FOR, otherwise the discussion just gets lost (I presume it IS standards we are talking about and not an information sheet).

Perhaps before getting too far into this continually incipient discussion of "detecting standards" you are trying to agree to, it seems to me that it would be useful to consider which of these aims are of prime importance to both (all?) sides:

- To provide full ‘preservation by record’ of information disturbed by the artefact hunter removing archaeological evidence from a horizontal (and one hopes not vertical) context.
- To ensure all the contextual evidence about the past disturbed in artefact hunting gets to form part of the publicly available archaeological resource.
- To harness detecting to make the archaeological evidence it disturbs available to archaeology and heritage management and through them to society as a whole?
- To provide a form of archaeological outreach to the artefact hunting milieu? (And if so do we understand the vague word “outreach” to mean “instruction/encouragement” or “information gathering”?)
- To protect the archaeological resource ? (If so what part of it? What about the artefacts scattered in various personal collections? What about information about horizontal contexts?)
- To make those practicing the hobby face the responsibility they have to the common heritage.
- To prevent the loss of even more irreplaceable information to artefact hunting.
- To make detecting into a rich and rewarding hobby while doing minimal damage to the historic and natural environment?
- To provide some sort of ‘kudos’ and privileges for those who can demonstrate active compliance?
- To empower the group of people who compile and/or oversee compliance with the “Code”?
- Just an exercise in getting two groups to seem to be talking together about inconsequential minutiae leaving the main issues untouched (which seems to me to have been the purpose of the PAS discussion of a 'Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting' while the Hawkshead Review was being done and stopped inconclusively soon afterwards)
- To provide a platform for co-operation between archaeologists, heritage managers and artefact hunters?
- To protect the hobby of artefact hunting from the criticism of those who see the current codes of practice as wildly inadequate?
- To make the policing of illicit detecting easier?
- To create a code of Practice only applicable to the use of metal detectors? What about those who hunt and collect other artefact types, such as flints from ploughed downland or eroding from cliffs?

Given the nature of the hobby and the declared disregard to certain issues of certain fractions of the community, what actual use would a Code be which is not policed? Are the standards going to be a voluntary code which is adhered to be a few self-proclaimed “responsible detectorists” and ignored (or merely paid lip-service to) by the majority - as the PAS apparently currently is? Are we going to entertain the vague hope that merely setting something up is enough to make people join in? Or - in order that it is not merely a cosmetic exercise - are you going to push for some kind of sanctions against those that do not comply and not only damage the archaeological resource by their unrecorded collecting but also bring the hobby into disrepute?

Obviously it seems the discussion needs to consider what is recorded and why – from this stems a definition of what a “record” is – a problem lying behind the current misunderstandings about what UKDFD is and is not. From this stems any discussion of what "standards" it needs to fulfill. As an example, the PAS makes much of the fact that 47% of the artefact hunter finds they have recorded have “six figure NGRs”. This may be adequate for some purposes, but is it adequate for all purposes to which those data “preserved by documentation” may one day be put? The object is taken out of the ground once, what is recorded then will have to suffice for all purposes for all time. A 6-fig NGR may be suitable for finding the rough location of a plough-damaged Anglian cemetery in a field for example, but certainly not for linking the scatter of metal finds in the ploughsoil over the site with the distribution of features under it.

I suggest that the definition of “detecting standards” should address first what the long-term purpose(s) of collecting these data is likely to be. It seems a bit short sighted to set out to “build something” just for the sake of building something, without thinking about to what uses it will need to be put. Some of these points about the nature of recording may (?)be more obvious to the archaeologists here than the artefact-hunters, which is why I suggest that in order to avoid misunderstandings, it would be useful to begin at the beginning.

Having said that, why do I get the impression that this discussion [in a drive towards a redefined "self-determination" by the metal detectorists] seems to be out to reinvent the wheel? For nearly a year (?) there has been a draft Code of Practice posted up on the PAS website which incorporates the CBA [and other] suggestions for a modification of the existing Codes. It was the subject of debate on the PAS website (much of it by the same detectorists as we now have here - not only Steve, Pete and Gary but Venicone/Co too), but also on UKDN, Britarch and TTForum. It looks like a reasonably good starting point [and also presumably lies behind the version being discussed between the NCMD and the CBA at the moment]. Why not take that draft code as a beginning and continue the discussion that was taking part on it last year and let people here say what they would like deleted from it and what should be added and why? Why can this discuussion not start with dissecting that document, identifying its strong and weak points and discussing them in order to get a clearer picture of what the issues have been? What does starting the whole discussion all over again actually achieve?

Sorry if these points are blindingly obvious to some here, but it seems to me that they needed saying before we finished page six of the current discussion.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Just to help people..

http://www.finds.org.uk/documents/CBA_draft_code.pdf

is the link

It is however a bit slim and non specific.

There is much in what you say about standards and guidance that should apply to ALL artefact Hunters... whether Detectorist, Archaeologist, Beachcomber etc etc.

This discussion is having to reinvent the wheel as it does seem that no one else is moving forward on this.

So... clean slates all round... open discussion... sensible ideas and a document can be produced that is Draft and then implemented.

Too many draft documents end up as just that... as this one seems to be years old...


http://www.britarch.ac.uk/detecting/cont.html is also worth a read.... just watch out for stats in it... you could read what you want ;)

plus check out the CBA's history in this area...
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/detecting/

happy reading... and talking.

Thanks for lots to chew on Paul

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

Paul raises a very good point. As an artifact hunter (shades of Indiana Jones and, for Sukisal, Lara Croft come to mind) of many years, I too would like to know exactly what this standard is aimed at. I tried to raise this issue on the Q&A thread, and was subsequently "boo-ed" off. The question, though, still remains.

Why do we need to create a new 'standard'? It is a very simple question, yet nobody has actually stated what this standards purpose is, how it will be 'distributed' and, perhaps more importantly, how will it be enforced?

We could talk ourselves blue in the face about topsoil, conservation, reporting, 'ownership', heritage, NGR's, pasture, and in any order you like, twice even, if it floats your boat. But there will come a point when we say, "yep, sounds terrific, that will do nicely"....then what?

Some would say we can deal with that when the time comes, or the solution will come to us during the discussion. Possibly it may, but being realistic for a moment, I don't think that will happen.

Any project, no matter what it is, as I am sure most of you know, must have a purpose. Before any work is carried out on it, or resources allocated to it, there has to be a point to which everything is aimed. 'Creating a standard for all' is not an aim. It is part of the project. The aim is what to do with the project once it is complete.

In opening this thread, Steve-B stated that

quote:There are no standards associated with the hobby of detecting.

The two hobby organisations sport 'Codes of Practice' that are little more than glorified Country Codes.. useless when one thinks of the responsibilities that those practicing the hobby have.


He is correct. There is no 'standard' associated with Metal Detecting. The 'codes' were created as guidelines for detectorists to follow. Both the NCMD and FID are aware that to set 'standards' there has to be a method of ensuring these 'standards' are adhered to. The autonomy which MD clubs have in governing their own affairs would make the standard purely voluntary.

In spite of the personal differences between Steve-B and I, we are both agree, as do many detectorists, that an ideal situation would be to have a body that represented ALL detectorists at the 'negotiating table'. We would then be able to use leverage to 'encourage' the members to adhere to the 'standards' and everybody would be happy....ish ("...you can't please all the people all the time"...)

Paul has named some 'aims' which we should consider. But is this list exhaustive (knowing Paul, I think not...)? Because if these few can't be agreed on, what is the point of having a standard?

Ultimately, archaologists and detectorists will be able to work together 'officially'. This is inevitable. Under what terms this will occur will be decided by the type of groups that are already working together all over the country. Despite one or two archaeologists who desire to see Metal Detecting banned totally, and one or two detectorists who will never, under any circumstances, trust let alone work with archaeologists, the majority of those who enjoy our respective hobbies/vocations will come to an agreement as to how the 'common heritage' should be treated and cared for, with all the 'official' bodies working together towards a common goal.

Perhaps this is where BAJR can start the ball rolling. Set out what those aims should be. Contact the various groups that are already working together and discover what makes the partnerships so successful.

As to what to do with the 'standard' once it has been agreed to is something which can be discussed by all interested parties. Who knows, perhaps a solution may be forthcoming from it.

[Steve-B]

John with respect, just because we have no physical way of enforcing standards does preclude us from setting them both by example and promotion.

I would also argue that we do have a body that currently represents all detectorists, they argue that they only represent their members, but I counter argue that they do indeed represent the whole of the hobby by the very fact that are involved in decisions that affect the hobby as a whole.

[BAJR Host]

SO does that mean that 'minimum' standards could be written down, over and above the close the gate and don't leave holes?



Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

John, Steve, Would it not be possible to continue the tired old "what has the NCMD done for me" dispute on a detecting forum like UKDN where the "us" would be more applicable. Far more fruitful here surely would be to return to the basic issue of a closer definition of those standards you wish to offer.

Paul Barford

[john1504]

I would agree with you Paul about leaving the NCMD out of this, unfortunately, it is, I believe, important that everyone involved understand why this whole subject has not been covered by an official body. So please bear with me for a little longer.

Steve's point concerning representation for Metal Detecting is, sadly, true. What I was trying to make clear is that it is a one-way representation, where the interests of the many are in the hands of a few - by default. Not the ideal situation to have when negotiating the future of a hobby that is enjoyed by tens of thousands.

I would also agree that there is nothing to stop us hammering out a 'standard' that can, if nothing else, be used to teach newbies to the hobby how to get the most out of it, while helping record the heritage for posterity.

This, however, will be like starting a jig-saw puzzle from the middle, with no idea of what the picture is supposed to look like, or how big it is. Will it do the job it is intended to do? Even though we haven't worked that bit out yet (unless we intend to create a job to fit the 'standard' - don't laugh, I've seen it happen).

Basically, if we are to create a product for a 'client' we need to determine who that 'client' will be. What the 'client' wants, how detailed the 'product' has to be, and how flexible for upgrades, improvements, or ammendments.

We already have a starting list for discussion, as provided by Paul. Are the subjects on this list what the 'standard' is to cover? If not, then what should it cover?

[Steve-B]

quote:John, Steve, Would it not be possible to continue the tired old "what has the NCMD done for me" dispute on a detecting forum like UKDN where the "us" would be more applicable. Far more fruitful here surely would be to return to the basic issue of a closer definition of those standards you wish to offer.

Paul Barford

Paul,my post had nothing to do with any old NCMD disputes, it does however have everything to do with the whole point of this thread and that is representation and standards.


quote:This, however, will be like starting a jig-saw puzzle from the middle, with no idea of what the picture is supposed to look like, or how big it is. Will it do the job it is intended to do? Even though we haven't worked that bit out yet (unless we intend to create a job to fit the 'standard' - don't laugh, I've seen it happen).

Basically, if we are to create a product for a 'client' we need to determine who that 'client' will be. What the 'client' wants, how detailed the 'product' has to be, and how flexible for upgrades, improvements, or ammendments.

I think you rather answered your own questions John, anything devised by the hobby to address its needs should be an organic work, continually in progress, felxible enough to alter and meet changing circumstances. At no time should it be considered complete or finished, this would only lead to stagnation and disharmony.

[BAJR Host]

Perhaps it would be useful to point out to those on this board that there are two groups that 'represent' detectorists

FID (Federation of Independent Detectorists) and
http://fid.newbury.net/
NCMD (National Council for Metal Detecting)
http://www.ncmd.co.uk/

In the main.. the NCMD are the group that are asked to 'represent' the hobby. However many people feel that the NCMD do not speak for them. (Just as many archaeologists do not feel the IFA represent their views)

This is further complicated by many hundreds of detectorists who don't connect with either.

I have to agree with Paul that the discussion about the NCMD is for another place... though an understanding of why is useful... perhaps people could look on UKDetectornet to understand.

However we do have two very very valid points...

Someone (or whatever the plural of someone is) .... (its not for us to say who) should represent the hobby - just as BAJR, CBA, Rescue, IFA etc 'represent archaeology. I would be happy to be inclusive and work with everyone, if it means that we reach more detectorists.

(ps... must just say that I am so impressed with detectorists in Scotland... very organised and very proactive ... Alistair Hacket of the Scottish Detectorists Club was at a recent meeting with myself and the CSA about Adopting Monuments and Community Archaeology, because in Scotchland we do work well together and see each other as all working to the same end - and I am spending Friday laying out a grid to help in the Detector Survey of Pinkie Battlefield (the last battle between England and Scotland as well as the transition between the bow and the gun- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pinkie)

but I digress...

The issue of 'standards' should be seen as a move forward, and I fully agree with Steve in that these standards should be always moving forward..

John actually hits the nail on the head with words like client and product.

The client : the Public and British History
the product... now there is the complex bit... just like archaeology, with so many possibilities... from finding and forgetting to full reporting of a find and further research.

Can we concentrate on a sensible and (most importantly) achievable result.

Can we create a ‘shortish’ set of goals.
1. General Code. (Including talking to people and schools!)
2. Code for working on known sites
3. Code on finding New sites
4. Code for Significant Finds
5. How to work with archaeologists and how archaeologists can work with you.

Worth a try…. PLUS…… worth a paper at the BAJR Conference??




Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

quote:I have to agree with Paul that the discussion about the NCMD is for another place...

Fair comment, afyer all it is your site.

However, the subject of representation is vitally important to the hobby, perhaps though I should be less specific when addressing it.

[BAJR Host]

;):D}:)

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

quote:Someone (or whatever the plural of someone is) .... (its not for us to say who) should represent the hobby - just as BAJR, CBA, Rescue, IFA etc 'represent archaeology.

If representatives from the four groups mentioned were to sit around a table with detectorists, would any agreement they made be welcomed by ALL archaeologists? ie the members of Britarch?

The answer, I suspect, will be no. I am 99.99% sure that the NCMD will not get involved in this project, simply because they are already talking to the CBA, DEFRA, etc. So that leaves a group of like-minded (yes...that's what I said) detectorists, who want to see the hobby of Metal Detecting take seriously the problem regarding the loss of data that the 'common heritage' is suffering, due to the apathy/ignorance of 'artefact-hunters/suedo-archaeologists.

I am not implying that the NCMD/FID do not take this problem seriously, they simply have other items on their agenda. Meanwhile, the archaeologists in the field, and detectorists, see what needs doing, and can act on it without having to go through various committee sessions, with delays as each side reads statements produced by the other, for agreement before publishing etc.....

My point? Hosty mentioned these groups as representing Archaeology. Metal Detecting has no such luxury. The only detectorists you will discuss these issues with, at present, are the ones you 'chat' to on here. It may be possible to get others to join in, but I wouldn't like to guarantee that.

[sukisal]

My strong feelings are of my own experiences.
And as a new comer I had to search hard to find out anything.
As I have said that is all important to my way of thinking. An easily available guide to read.
Not just with guidlines and standards.
What is PAS?
What happens when you hand things in to the PAS? When you get them back? what they do with them?
Maybe if they understand this they will be more ready to comply.
As I say, I am trying to relate to others on here what my personal experiences were and are.
I am but a simple soul, I say as I feel and am trying to put it as simple as I can see it, because I think that is what is needed.:D

[garybrun]

My suggestion would be to create a standard not a code.
People can then sign up to that standard and what it “stands for”
They then can wear an “emblem” or a “banner” on their website that shows they are committed to that “standard”.

In England you have the British Standard Kite Mark for an example.
Detectorists are very patriotic and I believe would wear such a “badge” with pride and pass the information on to others. The secret is to find a balance that metal detectorists and archaeologists could agree too and then move on from there.


http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[Post-Med Potterer]

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Samuel Johnson, 1775

[john1504]

PMP, are you saying that those who express patriotism are scoundrels? If so, please explain how this adds to the discussion in hand. If not, why was it said at all?

[Steve-B]

quote:If representatives from the four groups mentioned were to sit around a table with detectorists, would any agreement they made be welcomed by ALL archaeologists? ie the members of Britarch?

The answer, I suspect, will be no. I am 99.99% sure that the NCMD will not get involved in this project, simply because they are already talking to the CBA, DEFRA, etc. So that leaves a group of like-minded (yes...that's what I said) detectorists, who want to see the hobby of Metal Detecting take seriously the problem regarding the loss of data that the 'common heritage' is suffering, due to the apathy/ignorance of 'artefact-hunters/suedo-archaeologists.

I am not implying that the NCMD/FID do not take this problem seriously, they simply have other items on their agenda. Meanwhile, the archaeologists in the field, and detectorists, see what needs doing, and can act on it without having to go through various committee sessions, with delays as each side reads statements produced by the other, for agreement before publishing etc.....

My point? Hosty mentioned these groups as representing Archaeology. Metal Detecting has no such luxury. The only detectorists you will discuss these issues with, at present, are the ones you 'chat' to on here. It may be possible to get others to join in, but I wouldn't like to guarantee that.

Now then...are we all going to agree that the NCMD is not mentioned in this thread is it just that I am not allowed to?...:D

Seriously I am in total accord with Gary,raise the standard and encourage members of the community to aspire to its ideals.

I am also of the mind that the impetus to address the problem of lost data to our Common Heritage has to come from within the hobby.. no amount of external brow beating (as is evident) will make the slightest bit of difference.

It does not matter whether those that raise the standard are allied to one organisation or another or indeed neither, all that matters is that the standard is raised with enthusiasm and comitemnt to see it emulated.

[Petethedig]

I think its inconceivable to have a discussion about detecting standards with out the NCMD/FID involved. They are after-all the two main party's that represent the vast majority of detectorist in the UK. It's a crying shame that the FID don't get involved with these thought's and ideas in my view.

This whole standards discussion will have to come down to a point where it hits the road, thats the point where it contacts the man in the field with his detector. I remember the hours that many of us put into the discussions on the PAS forum. What did that lead to really?

We can easily do the same here for all the right reasons, but it has to be acceptable to detectorist come the final full stop.

I think in principle its good were at least discussing this, but I'm a little concerned its going on in the middle of a whole host of other issues that as John says the NCMD in particular are involved in.
I work to high personal standards in the field and at home, but the vast majority of detectorist don't as the current levels of those recording with PAS exposes. I wonder if this is beyond its time at the moment,but having said that someone has to start somewhere.

There are salutary lessons to be learnt by the PAS experience thus far on the outreach to detectorist in England and Wales.
Maybe thats the issue thats needed to discuss before we try and build something that must last and progress?

Before people are told what standards to work by surely the quest is to tell them why first!

[rachstebbs]

I do not wish to sound rude, and these discussions have been interesting to read (most of the time), but everyone is moving away from the point of the thread.
Stop allocating blame, and work for an achievable goal. BAJR is trying to help, but if you think your own representatives aren't going to join in "The answer, I suspect, will be no. I am 99.99% sure that the NCMD will not get involved in this project, simply because they are already talking to the CBA, DEFRA, etc." are they worth being members of?
There are enough of you talking on here to get the ball rolling. But can I please ask a favour, if you can't agree that you can work together then go argue on another forum. At the end of the day BAJR is an archaeological forum, to discuss issues and factors within archaeology. These discussions have all started off promisingly and then decended into chaos, with most of the archaeologists leaving the conversation entirely. If you wanna work together lets do it, Stop bickering and moaning!

At the end of the day there will always be rogues and naughty people who don't respect the public right to a properly recorded and understood heritage. BUT there are rogue archeologists too. It doesn't stop the rest of us working to guidelines.

[BAJR Host]

Righty.... can someone give me the contact details of the right people to talk to at the NCMD and/or FID so I can have a discussion about it with them directly..

Offlist please... use this email addy.

info@bajr.org (mailto:info@bajr.org)

Another day another WSI…

[Historyman]

May I suggest that as the Metal Detecting Fraternity and the Archaeologists in Kent were the first to break new ground by setting up KAMSU and KADLAG so they could both work to gether, (which they do and respect each other.)That you get in touch with DAG or any Archaeologist Groups in Kent to find out why they can do it but no one else seems to be able to get on together. Just my thoughts on the subject. Ron.

[BAJR Host]

Good thought though.... will contact them next week.

Could you give me a hint about who to talk to and contact details... even a website..

I know I know I'm lazy!:D

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

It would seem that there is some misunderstanding as to the authority that the 'recognised voice' of Metal Detecting has.

On this topic, does anyone here have the authority to speak on behalf of the CBA? With the understanding that any agreement we reach on here will be accepted by the CBA?

And what about DEFRA? or EH? or ALGAO? or the IFA? Can anyone speak on their behalf, with the authority reach agreement on this subject?

Rachstebbs has raised doubts concerning membership of a representative body that is unlikely to take part in this discussion. I assume this is because I failed to explain that said body is dealing with 'Official Representatives' from those groups I mentioned.....What we have here is grass roots participation in a project that, if it proves successful and viable, we will take to those respective bodies and offer it for consideration on a wider, and larger, scale.

This is how I see this project taking off. The bodies which represent our respective 'groups' are, obviously, far too busy dealing with the larger picture than to get involved in such basic details, therefore, in my opinion, it's up to us (BAJR, Paul, Steve, Gary, Pete, Ron, Sal, AA, myself, and any others who wish to participate), to get the ball rolling.

And what about groups such as Heritage Action? We have archaeologists, academics, and detectorists taking part in this, what about representation from 'the public'? Is there any reason why Nigel Swift, for example, shouldn't be involved?

[Historyman]

Here you go try this one and also County Hall Maidstone. Ron
General Enquiries
c/o Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 92a Broad Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 2LU
tel: 01227 462062 • fax: 01227 784724 • email: admin@canterburytrust.co.uk


Follow Kents example

[sukisal]

quote:Originally posted by john1504

It would seem that there is some misunderstanding as to the authority that the 'recognised voice' of Metal Detecting has.

On this topic, does anyone here have the authority to speak on behalf of the CBA? With the understanding that any agreement we reach on here will be accepted by the CBA?

And what about DEFRA? or EH? or ALGAO? or the IFA? Can anyone speak on their behalf, with the authority reach agreement on this subject?

Rachstebbs has raised doubts concerning membership of a representative body that is unlikely to take part in this discussion. I assume this is because I failed to explain that said body is dealing with 'Official Representatives' from those groups I mentioned.....What we have here is grass roots participation in a project that, if it proves successful and viable, we will take to those respective bodies and offer it for consideration on a wider, and larger, scale.

This is how I see this project taking off. The bodies which represent our respective 'groups' are, obviously, far too busy dealing with the larger picture than to get involved in such basic details, therefore, in my opinion, it's up to us (BAJR, Paul, Steve, Gary, Pete, Ron, Sal, AA, myself, and any others who wish to participate), to get the ball rolling.

And what about groups such as Heritage Action? We have archaeologists, academics, and detectorists taking part in this, what about representation from 'the public'? Is there any reason why Nigel Swift, for example, shouldn't be involved?




I think anyone who has any understanding on all aspects should be involved if they have useful input.
It seems to be a very quiet discussion here doesn't it? I would have liked to see more input from the archaeologists on here.
Positive aims, willingness to build bridges, for the good of all.
I am more than willing to participate if I feel it is getting somewhere.
I would love to see most detectorists working alongside archaeologists, I have helped at a couple of digs (not with my machine). Was fascinating, I loved it.
As I said before input is needed from all sides though.

[john1504]

Digressing from the topic for just a moment. This came on the news a few moments ago......:D:D

"British people should be given more chance to be patriotic."

Gordon Brown

:D:D:D

[john1504]

To get back on the subject, I really do believe that many detectorists will welcome the chance to work alongside archaeologists. But reading some of the threads on this site regarding work practices on digs (especially rescue digs) in respect of HSE, for example, will these be covered in any 'standard' which is agreed upon?

[john1504]

How is this for a 'first page' for any 'standard' we come up with?
I've taken some of the suggestions made by Paul Barford that would enable us to start the discussion off.


quote:
The purpose of the following standard is to protect the archaeological resource by:


Providing full ‘preservation by record’ of information disturbed by the removal of archaeological evidence from a horizontal context.

Ensuring the contextual evidence about the past discovered during metal detecting gets to form part of the publicly available archaeological resource.

Encouraging those hunting or collecting artefacts to face the responsibility they have to the common heritage.

Making detecting a rich and rewarding hobby while preserving the historic and natural environment.

Providing a platform for co-operation between archaeologists, heritage managers and Detectorists.

Creating a ‘Code of Practice’ applicable to those who hunt and collect other artefact types, such as flints from ploughed downland or eroding from cliffs.


The list is by now means exhaustive, and some will, undoubtedly, think changes can be made to what is proposed, something added, or something deleted. That's what discussion is all about.

[Corinne Mills]

quote:Originally posted by john1504


The list is by now means exhaustive, and some will, undoubtedly, think changes can be made to what is proposed, something added, or something deleted. That's what discussion is all about.




I think you also need to explain WHY these are needed to create a standard John - and it also to be written in plain english to ensure the message is clear :)

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

[sukisal]

Yes that is surely the way we should go, and I agree with Corinne there, that we need to explain why.
Also yes maybe simplified a bit for simpletons like me[:I]
I am sorry to say when I started I would not have understood some of that John.
Those are standards, we need guidlines as well, directions for want of a better word, to point detectorists towards what they should do after they follow the standards and have the finds in their hands.:D

[BAJR Host]

Exactly, as no one wants to wade through a 159 page tome on Standards...

But a 2 page or 3 page version.

I think we are getting there

Another day another WSI…

[sukisal]

Ok folks....I think I take the hint now!
I get the distinct feeling of lack of interest, well no interest at all after the initial posts.
Except BAJR Host who has at least had the decency to acknowledge us. Thankyou BAJR HOST.
I really have better things to do with my time, so I will put my efforts elsewhere where they are wanted.
Thankyou all, it's been a pleasureB)

[BAJR Host]

A sad turn up.....

come on archaeologists... surely you can put your collective noddles together and say what you would like to see.... then we can work with it.

Otherwise ...... well no point complaining in 10 years

Another day another WSI…

[archae_logical]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

A sad turn up.....

come on archaeologists... surely you can put your collective noddles together and say what you would like to see.... then we can work with it.

Otherwise ...... well no point complaining in 10 years

Another day another WSI…


Very sad. You have detectorists willing to work with you to sort out standards and guidelines and don't have the common courtesy to even post that you'd give it some thought. :(
I know you're all busy with your jobs, aren't we all.
I don't ever want to hear an archaeologist complaining about MDers again.

E
(feeling pretty disgusted)

[Avenging Angel]

I for one will just keep working with the Archaeologists in Kent. We came on here it seems only to be snubbed and belittled by the same people who wanted an open dialog with us. So I say stuff you and may it rain on your digs 52 weeks a year}:)

Long live the NCMD and PAS.

[BAJR Host]

It does already... well up here in Scotland ;)

However do not give up yet... there is a lot goinfg on just now... so I will continue on for now.

As has been said, we do need a general 'code' which goes beyond the close the gate and pick up litter.

Do most people know what to do if finds are found... would it be useful to have a 'what to do' Making it clear about best practice.

This does not have to be simpleton condecending stuff like...

"if you find a golden bowl... always remember to tell your smiling FLO" but just a list that puts into plain english a 'good' way to act. (and I know that people do already, but a new machine with a guide enclosed would perhaps help to let new users know what to do..

My first suggestion would be
Join a club... a list can be found ----HERE-----
Know your FLO... contact lists can be found ---HERE---
Contact your local county archaeologist if you feel you have found something intersting ---- HERE ---
Remember that once an artefact is out the ground you are the only person who knows where it comes from unless you keep records of where - so that further significant finds make sense. ( a good example can be found ---HERE ---
We all have a duty of care to our shared heritage.


Another day another WSI…

[Historyman]

I think that the Archaeologists have blown it big time with the detectorists now though there own ignorance. I agree with AA and I will work with the Archaeologists in Kent. At least they treat us as equals, and I think that you lot on here have a lot to learn from what has been done in Kent. Only Paul Barford has had the decency to give his views, and a lot of them make sense. I thought that we where getting some where, and then it was one step forward and ten steps back to to the beginning. Lets be truthfull, does any of you take us Detectorists serious? Answers on a postcard please. Ron

Follow Kents example

[troll]

As it happens, I have a member of my family ill. If you don`t mind, I`d very much like to take time out from bajr and be with them.In the meantime, perhaps you`d care to point your mouth at someone else.When you`ve quite finished your little outbursts and, allowed me to prioritise my own life, I have every intention of rejoining the dialogue.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[sniper]

and I, for one, was fed up with seeing the threads started about detecting being filled with personal insults and rants rather than constructive dialogue. Is it any wonder that people feel less inclined to join in? Also, as troll says, we have other things to do with our lives than be on here every waking moment. I have seen threads started by myself and others dry up, but I haven't got into a huff about it and accused people of being ignorant because they didn't post...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[Beardstroker]

quote:Originally posted by Avenging Angel

I for one will just keep working with the Archaeologists in Kent. We came on here it seems only to be snubbed and belittled by the same people who wanted an open dialog with us. So I say stuff you and may it rain on your digs 52 weeks a year}:)

Long live the NCMD and PAS.


Snubbed and belittled. In what way and by whom?

[troll]

Santa (where`s me kin bike?)

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[sukisal]

I didn't expect any of you to constantly keep posting, but this thread had been going in a nice friendly and amicable way for the last three or four pages, Troll you welcomed me and asked me to keep posting, and the few still left on this thread invited us detectorists to carry on. Then nothing.
I know you all are busy, so am I, and as I say in my few spare moments on my computer can be better spent.
I know posts die, but this was in the middle of something important to us, and we were invited.
I don't take it as a personal insult or anything like that, just disinterest and am now little deflated. Never mind I can build bridges nearer home maybe.

[BAJR Host]

well said suki.

Lest we forget the point of this... we ALL must put our heads together..

So far nobody has responded to my suggestions.... so that would be a start...

please...

so no comments on here other than on the codes...B)

Another day another WSI…

[Hugh]

In terms of general standards there is only one thing that springs to mind.

For casual detecting, i.e. on a new site, buy a 1:25,000 map of the area and plot finds with an 8 figure grid reference.

There are things I would like done on organised detecting outings, but I don't think a general guidance note is the place for them.

When I look at the smiles on all the children's faces, I just know they're about to jab me with something.

[achingknees]

Crikey, some of those last responses were a tad harsh, if not spiteful and quite exaggerated to my mind. I for one missed the topic when originally posted as I was in bed!

I have been in favour of hosty's diplomacy so far, but this is really offputting. Maybe some archies feel like they can't win. Suggest some guidelines and get roasted for being patronising, fail to produce guidelines (on demand!) and told the archaeological community has blown it. Feels a bit lose-lose.

Now, I won't leave it entirely negative. I would really like to know what the Kent situation is. Please tell us all about the set-up there and any other places where there is healthy collaboration. What are the conditions/agreements/methods/guidelines in such places? We might be able to come up with something positive re mutually agreed guidelines.

[garybrun]

I agree with achingknees at some of the replies back have been a little harsh. just because someone hasn't responded for a few days doesn't mean they have forgotten the subject. We have been trying to sort this out for years and haven't really got any where yet... so give the guys a break and extra few days wont harm anyone.

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[BAJR Host]

i cood kiss ya... ;)

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

quote:i cood kiss ya...

Now that is something I would like to see....:D



I agree though whats a couple of days in the scheme of things?

Detecting will still be here tomrrow....:)

[BAJR Host]

er...of course.... what I meant was... er... have continued dialouge on a ...er... basis... of um.... mutual respect and ...um.... #

oh... poop... [:0] [:I]

any hoo...

has anyone got anything to remark about my suggestions

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Would it help if I created a Code to discuss?

Another day another WSI…

[troll]

Just wondering why the IFA has`nt a view on this? Occurs to me (said before elsewhere) that archies and MDs "work/play" with the same resource and yet here, we expect a whole string of independent "standards/guidelines" to work.One set of rules for all?A good (and topical) example of the absudity of this would be the way that archaeology/heritage does not have it`s own legislation to speak of.The entire framework hangs loosely upon disparate "guidelines" and pseudo-law drawn in from many different sources.This results in runaway muppetry as the many threads have no real teeth and worse-is open to an incredibly wide bandwidth of interpretation.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[garybrun]

I give my own opinion here and not of the detecting community.

I think it needs to be a standard that is set by metal detectorists but carries also an archaeological backing of that standard. Anything that is seen to be dictated by archaeologists would not work as many a detectorists would turn tail and run.

There needs to be a standard that is acceptable to both parties.
A joint standard... were both parties agree to future co-operation and take on the responsibility to educate one another. Detectorists promoting archaeologists and archaeologists promoting responsible detecting.

The crux in this area is that archaeologist would be accepting detecting as an important part of archeology and that a detectorists can be highly skilled in his expertise and acknowledging that fact.
The "scratch my back and I will scratch yours" mentality... not just one way thinking.




http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[troll]

I agree entirely Gary.I`m not in any way suggesting a dictatorship.I asked if the IFA had a view on this simply because they promote standards.Surely if dialogue is to open, the standards/guidence writers of both camps should talk to eachother.Could it not be as simple as discussing the methodology yes-but the mechanics of your artefact recovery process too? After all, your approach demands compromise-and so it should.I don`t see a conflict of interest in dialogue and, think the more we discuss issues here-the more we both achieve.
My rant about disparate and sometimes disjointed guidelines and standards was aimed specifically at commercial field archaeology.Without some form of statutory protection at a national level and, a set of workable, realistic and mutually agreed standards,and the rate at which our heritage is being hit today through development/farming/heritage cutbacks/MDs-we may as well give up.So,please excuse my ignorance and can I ask what aspects of archaeologists would have some MDs running away? I figure if the subscribers would help us to see their perception of us-this could be a good start?:D:D:DRumour has it that archaeologists have flatulence issues on occasion-I understand the running away bit.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[DAZ 1900]

quote:Originally posted by troll

and can I ask what aspects of archaeologists would have some MDs running away? I figure if the subscribers would help us to see their perception of us-this could be a good start?:D:D:DRumour has it that archaeologists have flatulence issues on occasion-I understand the running away bit.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)


Hi Troll,

Firstly my apologies for entering the discussion at such a late stage,

As a Detectorist of 7 years i first came into the hobby hearing of the stories of the Archaeo-Detecting "War" from the 70's and 80's (i use the term "War" loosely because that is how the elder peers amongst my fellow club members preceived it to be and also because i was not active in Detecting in this turbulant time so please forgive if this term offends as i say i use it rather loosely!)and hearing the various stories that were told and the warnings from respected Detectorists not to engage or liase with Archaeologists because you could lose your sites did initially put me off any collaboration with Archaeologists.Although being active in the hobby for only 7 years things have changed and my perception to Archaeologists has changed, and where i can i try to promote active recording and collaboration with Archaeologists,but to some the stigma and myths that were married to Archaeology in the 70's still walk hand in hand in their thoughts and words today, these beliefs are not just restricted to Metal Detectorists, many amongst the farming community hold similar views so much so that some Detectorists who may want to actively record their finds maybe prevented from doing so because the Landowner may have outdated views on Archaeology/Archaeologists .This perception of Archaeology needs to be changed! the myths that Detectorists will lose all their sites and planning applications will be denied due to Archaeology being present in the form of Detector finds as well as other forms.How these perceptions will be changed i do not know but one way would be to engage with young farmers and newcomers to Detecting. As for the flatulance now that could be a problem :D:)[:I]

Best wishes

Darren

[BAJR Host]

You are right about perceptions...

this is one of the biggest problems in archaeology (and archaeologists with detectorists, er... and many detectorists with archaeologists...etc etc)

One issue that BAJR conference will deal with is this need to actually tell people what is going on… rather than hoping they somehow telepathically know!

Most perceptions are false… but of course with all good rumours there are enough factoids to make them credible… my mate knows a bloke who once heard from a friend that if you tell an archaeologist about a find they will execute you family and then dig the site.. oh and throw the farmer off his land! Ya know what I mean

Anyway…

Has anyone had any thoughts about my additional suggestions for the guidance doc?

Nope? … read back and comment please
) ;)


Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Took me a while, but I have a cracker...I hope [:I]

" Each detectorist will act responsibily and endevour to preserve the finite resource. "

" The expectation should be that 'significant finds' (an artefact that is unexpected, unusual or part of a scatter of similar artefacts - including flint and ceramic scatters) are recorded and reported to the relevant archaeological or PAS officer to ensure that the information that can be found at the location is not lost"

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by garybrunThere needs to be a standard that is acceptable to both parties. So now several weeks on from that last post we have such a standard http://www.finds.org.uk/documents/CofP1.pdf (launched May 2nd) and we've already (May 3rd) heard that its unacceptable to detectorists. Why not? And do they all share this view? Have you done a poll on UKDN yet?

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Much agreement about the suggestions in the above addition to a 'code'

pity nobody added them... even though BAJR had already produced a guide (as you know) with consultation from detectorists... and the lists of PAS, Curators, HERs, etc etc... would have better been pointed to BAJRs Whos WHo...

}:)

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote: pity nobody added them... even though BAJR had already produced a guide (as you know) with consultation from detectorists... and the lists of PAS, Curators, HERs, etc etc... would have better been pointed to BAJRs Whos WHo... I rather think this Code was also widely consulted and not just with a few dozen detectorists. In any case the text we now see was finished before you began work here on a BAJR Code.

I dont think a Code of Practice needs to contain a "how to" or a "who's who". It really needs to be short and snappy to get the main points across and from which the rest follows.

It can always have a series of explanatory notes and a FAQ. Here is perhaps a role for BAJR, and you can work your nicely turned phrases into that, no problem.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

Why should an independant detecting community be subjected to to guidance notes from an unassociated body such as BAJR?

Especially in light of Peter Wardles premature and unwarranted closure of the code thread.

[drpeterwardle]

I have not closed or locked the thread on the code of practice.

Peter Wardle

[Steve-B]

Well someone has made sure that there is not to be a reply to your last statement on there...

No worries....

[drpeterwardle]

This is a test message to check there is no blocking/locking of the thread on the code of practice for metal detector users

http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=672&whichpage=3

Peter Wardle

[drpeterwardle]

I can confirm that at 23:45 on 6/5/2006 there is no reason why anybody cannot post a message on the the Bajr thread on the code of practice on metal detecting.

Dr Peter Wardle.

[Beardstroker]

Well on my page it says "Topic Locked" where the reply button is.

There is also a small picture of a padlock next to the folder.

Gremlins?

[garybrun]

It is locked Peter...


http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[Paul Barford]

Certainly looks that way on my computer too. Its a shame as I wanted to reply to what Peter said about the "green light" because that simply is not true and may mislead readers here who may not have consulted the text in detail as to what it actually says.

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Sorted now... a gremlin... nothing more sinister.

Roll on BAJR II I say ;)

sorry about the problem

Another day another WSI…