+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard (/showthread.php?tid=790)
Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard - garybrun - 15th January 2008
Archaeologists being defensive and metal detectorists being defensive each trying to justify their motives makes everything go around in circles and gets us nowhere. Both sides were shown to be lacking in skills and that each could have benefited from one anotherâs knowledge yet chose to think they alone new best.
I understand how archaeologists feel when they donât get the funding they require or when a big developer can muscle through various projects. I understand how a landowner feels and wants to protect his legally owned property from archaeologists that could prevent him continuing his farm practise and make a living as he wishes without having to pay for an archaeological dig that can wipe out his next 5 or 10 years profit margins.
Iâm sorry ... but Iâve been on land where the archaeologist just dives in thinking he has the right to everything without consideration of the landowner and just wiped away all chance of ever recording anything because he didnât use his brain or approached the matter in a sensitive and logical way.
Many a detectorist think differently and would record the knowledge and finds and pass them on at a later date because of the farmers request. We are also caught between a rock and a hard place regarding the recording... yet we record... at least something is recorded.
I know of cases were recording has taken place and information passed on and a friend of mine getting a call from a local irate farmer... âyou owe me £20,000â for the archaeological dig. This aint spin... its a fact and it goes on all too often.
Archaeologists have an image problem and need to deal with it.
As long as the general public think you walk around with beards, smoke pot and were fury jumpers you are never going to get any support and public money for your profession. You need to have a better âpublic imageâ and media campaign.
You need to get rid of this âprofessional snobberyâ that is so prevalent within archaeological circles and get yourselves a recognised title.
I could call myself an archaeologist which would horrify most people on this list.
I am not professional archaeologist, nor do I want to be one.
What I am though is a person who cares passionately about my heritage and put my money were my mouth is.
Surly the main concern is the heritage?
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard - achingknees - 15th January 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by tom wilson
Quote:quote:Originally posted by achingknees
The young (sic) detectorist made a very valid point when discussing the nature of Viking archaeology. To paraphrase - they didn't mess up the ground as much as in other periods. Not stated in the most academic way, but so what?!
Actually that was a rather ignorant point, as he was comparing Vikings with the likely creators of a ring ditch. Vikings did use foundations, and they dug plenty of holes for other purposes too.
I used 'young' as a relative identifier. I should have followed Gumbo's term of 'younger' I guess. Age is relative, as is pedantry.
I wouldn't call it an ignorant point. Of course Vikings may have dug pits, foundations etc etc in certain contexts. However, even in major urban centres such as Jorvik the structural remains are pretty flimsy. They were also able to build structures that left little archaeological trace, such as using turf. You have to remember that much Viking activity could have been transitory - tents leave very little trace. Seasonal meeting places (trading?) would not have large timber halls.
I live and work in Mercia, where there is an abundance of evidence for Viking settlement in terms of place names and material culture. Very little (if any) evidence for pits, structures etc etc. I think that was what the young[u]er</u> chap might have been alluding to. His delivery might have been awkward, in a north-eastern, working class accent, but that is not a sign of ignorance.
Quick acid test around the office, full of local archies. 'OK from memory name ten famous British sites of the Palaeolithic period'(insert succeeding culture historic period thereafter). Guess which period came off worse?
I know...Jorvik, Sutton Hoo, that Orcadian site, that one on Time Team last night(?) errr...
Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard - tom wilson - 15th January 2008
Pedant? Me? Actually, Achingknees I highlighted your reference to his age because it took me (at least) a while to work out whom you were talking about.
Disregard, for a moment, the fella's age, class, birthplace, attire, etc. and tell me whether you think that prehistoric domestic constructions are likely to be more substantial than early Medieval domestic constructions in the same field. How about any accompanying pits and ditches?
In some areas a change in the level of the water table might cause this, but that's the only circumstance I can think of where the above statement would be true.
(Note: concerning [u]likelihood</u>, not all cases).
Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard - Steven - 15th January 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by garybrun
I understand how archaeologists feel when they donât get the funding they require or when a big developer can muscle through various projects. I understand how a landowner feels and wants to protect his legally owned property from archaeologists that could prevent him continuing his farm practise and make a living as he wishes without having to pay for an archaeological dig that can wipe out his next 5 or 10 years profit margins.
Hi All
Gumbo, fair enough chap, my point was kind of general and from a "black and white" sort of ethical stance and I too certainly don't want to argue as these are always complex issues!
Gary
The thing is its not the archaeologists that decide on planning policy its elected officials, Local Councillors and MPs. I honestly think that there is so much misunderstanding about archaeology that it is very difficult to discuss issues. If a farmer puts in an Agricultural Determination "planning" application to build something that is needed on his/her farm he/she will not have to fund an archaeological excavation (unless they are in a National Park or other specialised area where planning rights are restricted) because of the "special" planning rules for farmers. If a developer (or individual) wants to build on an archaeological site they will have to fund work because of a 1990 Planning guidance note (issued by a Conservative Govt) based on the "polluter pays" principle. So generally farmers already get an easier pass than "normal" people. So I very much doubt that a MD declaring their finds means that a farmer would have to pay 20,000 pounds, unless of course they are developing the land and are going to make a profit from it and as a planning condition cannot make a development unviable the profits are very likely to be at least 10 times that cost anyway. On the other side of the coin (bad pun intended) farmers get paid to preserve arch sites on their land and MDs get fee access to land until such a time as it is taken into stewardship so that the farmer can get paid for it. MDs get public funding through the PAS to help with ID etc. Meanwhile archaeologist (about 90%) of them only get funding through private means such as developers etc.
It seems to me that if farmers and MDs are unhappy about this public funding then we should start thinking about changing the rules so that we don't pay farmers subsides for heritage and we put them back into the "normal" planning process, we could also get rid of PAS and use all the money saved from ELS, HLS and PAS to start public funding of county archaeology units. No? not a good idea? contentious perhaps? But If people don't want money for nothing then I say take it off them}
Steven
Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard - achingknees - 15th January 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by tom wilson
Pedant? Me? Actually, Achingknees I highlighted your reference to his age because it took me (at least) a while to work out whom you were talking about.
Disregard, for a moment, the fella's age, class, birthplace, attire, etc. and tell me whether you think that prehistoric domestic constructions are likely to be more substantial than early Medieval domestic constructions in the same field. How about any accompanying pits and ditches?
In some areas a change in the level of the water table might cause this, but that's the only circumstance I can think of where the above statement would be true.
(Note: concerning [u]likelihood</u>, not all cases).
Attire - you got a problem with his dress sense too? [:p]
Well yes, after 20 odd years of digging around here I have found prehistoric occupation sites from the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age. The latter four have all had structural survival in terms of holes of varying sizes
.Diddly squit Viking structures. I shouldn't answer for all my colleagues in the office but I'm sure I would have heard if any of them had found a Viking occupation site.
Re domestic structures - my point was that this site with 1000s of artefacts needn't be a domestic occupation site.
Not sure which above statement would be true re changes in water table [?][?].
Quite a good debate on Britarch this lunchtime...
Achingknees (the Younger)
Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard - garybrun - 15th January 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Steven
It seems to me that if farmers and MDs are unhappy about this public funding then we should start thinking about changing the rules so that we don't pay farmers subsides for heritage and we put them back into the "normal" planning process, we could also get rid of PAS and use all the money saved from ELS, HLS and PAS to start public funding of county archaeology units. No? not a good idea? contentious perhaps? But If people don't want money for nothing then I say take it off them}
Steven
More running around in circles justifying various positions.
Any positive points of what can be done.
Ive already proposed to David of setting up a national database of detectorists that archaeologists can call upon for assistance.
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard - drpeterwardle - 15th January 2008
I would like to correct this point
"However, even in major urban centres such as Jorvik the structural remains are pretty flimsy. They were also able to build structures that left little archaeological trace, such as using turf".
No at Coppergate the structures were very solid with a massive build up of material several feet thick. The same is also true in Trondheim.
Peter Wardle
Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard - BAJR Host - 15th January 2008
this is more like it...
a vicious debate carried out with politeness! Apart from comments about dress sense!
To pick up gumbos point
Quote:quote:If you want my opinion on practice then I am in favour of public funds being made available for surface find sites to be preserved in situ, but I feel that the continued practice of the detectorists needs to be thought about when sites have been discovered by detecting. In short 'flexible' preservation in situ (is this a contradiction in terms i hear you say!).
exactly what I have been bleating on about for a while (and not alone I might add) a flexible approach... a reward, where the detectorist who found the site, is allowed to continue... as clearly they are responsible and report finds, otherwise they would not have reported it in the first place... even offering support, training free ziplock bags..? Why not... we have to find solutions.. not continually handwring about the problems.
The best solution is to show the doubters on both sides that they may be loud, they may take the headlines... but they are a minority and past their sell by date... This does not mean that every detectorist becomes a trainee archaeologist G1 level no... they remain a detectorist.. but we can spare the time to ensure that we treat them in such a way that they don't see us as middleclass twits with university degrees and an inability to talk with the general public...
Training Training Training... Education Education Education... Flexibility etc.....
Richard Hall... I know him too... made us work blinkin hard at Kellington! and we were on 24 hour shifts as it was! But hey I haev a soft spot for YAT... Though you could not get over that everyone was uncomfortable... I like the idea of BAJR marraige Guidance... maybe Me and Neil Oliver can wife swap on a celebrity dance X factor Rally [:o)]:face-huh:
anyway... back to the topic..
Gary has mentioned the list of Detectorists provided on a searchable map ... this is indeed going to happen... need a crew... click and pick... I know very few detectroists (well perhaps a few!) who would not be happy to do this (and don't give me the H&S card... as we all know it is perfectly possible if.. as has been said, it is written in from the start.) So YES... YES YES... the more we get to know each other... the more the demon image that we have of each other disappears.
Viking structures...in the countryside rather than towns. pesky cillbeams and the like, leaving only the slightest groove in the ground...which is usually ploughed away anyway. bring back post holes and proper ditches! They are as hard as the blinkin Meso folk to find their structures!
To finish off... as Peter says... we have to act.
The choices to me are clear.
A) Do nothing and hope that er... something happens
B) Do something aggressive... p#ss off thousand of detectorists who could actually help find and record stuff we would never find...
C) Do something positive so that we can both utilise each otheres skills.
Guess which one I go for....?
:face-huh:
I have stopped being angry over the last few years... started being realistic.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard - Austin Ainsworth - 15th January 2008
Steven,
thanks for the points that you raised in regard to garybrun's posts, I was on the point of replying when I saw the responses made by yourself, my reply would have been much more incendiary and much less moderate.
quote
"Iâm sorry ... but Iâve been on land where the archaeologist just dives in thinking he has the right to everything without consideration of the landowner and just wiped away all chance of ever recording anything because he didnât use his brain or approached the matter in a sensitive and logical way."
Gary how dare you suggest that archaeologists wantonly destroy archaeological sites.
If you ever wondered how you get triangles from a cow, you need buttermilk and cheese and an equilateral chainsaw. Half Man Half Biscuit
Time Team and Ainsbrook Hoard - gumbo - 15th January 2008
Er yes well I usually am polite: except when drunk!