16th November 2009, 05:09 PM
Hi
OK, If the problem trying to be solved is theft then deal with it through the normal method, the criminal justice system. We don't go around removing everybody's valuables from their homes because otherwise they are a temptation to burglars.
If the problem is destruction of archaeological remains through ploughing then put more pressure on government to change class consent.
Even if the idea of "sterilising" SMs is accepted why are you focusing on metal detecting as the solution. If you were serious about this then all artefactual (and possibly ecofactual) material within plough soil should be recorded. Therefore, shouldn't you all be advocating the sieving of all disturbed soil in a programmed way rather than the couple of amateurs and an FLO method.
Then there is the whole issue of why should public money be spent on this in the first place if less money can be spent more effectively. Again a much simpler solution would be the polluter pays principle. Get farmers (by law) to enter into management of monuments and subsidise them through existing farm payments. If the wished to carry on ploughing simply get them to pay for the archaeology in the same way developers are required under the planning process.
There are many other types of monuments that are under threat, such as waterlogged sites, drying out because of urban expansion and water requirements, sites on beaches because of costal erosion and of course unscheduled sites under plough. In fact the 6% of sites that are scheduled show a lower than average rate of destruction, so targeting SMs is not dealing with the main issue at all.
Even if your idea that sites threatened by nighthawkers should be sterilised was in any way acceptable then that means every single site of Bronze Age or later that is within the public realm should also be metal detected.
Oh and no HERs on-line because that only encourages night hawkers. In fact we should keep them all secret so that the temptation of knowing where they are doesn't motivate criminals.
Its a bad idea and doesn't address the issues it just sidesteps them.
OK, If the problem trying to be solved is theft then deal with it through the normal method, the criminal justice system. We don't go around removing everybody's valuables from their homes because otherwise they are a temptation to burglars.
If the problem is destruction of archaeological remains through ploughing then put more pressure on government to change class consent.
Even if the idea of "sterilising" SMs is accepted why are you focusing on metal detecting as the solution. If you were serious about this then all artefactual (and possibly ecofactual) material within plough soil should be recorded. Therefore, shouldn't you all be advocating the sieving of all disturbed soil in a programmed way rather than the couple of amateurs and an FLO method.
Then there is the whole issue of why should public money be spent on this in the first place if less money can be spent more effectively. Again a much simpler solution would be the polluter pays principle. Get farmers (by law) to enter into management of monuments and subsidise them through existing farm payments. If the wished to carry on ploughing simply get them to pay for the archaeology in the same way developers are required under the planning process.
There are many other types of monuments that are under threat, such as waterlogged sites, drying out because of urban expansion and water requirements, sites on beaches because of costal erosion and of course unscheduled sites under plough. In fact the 6% of sites that are scheduled show a lower than average rate of destruction, so targeting SMs is not dealing with the main issue at all.
Even if your idea that sites threatened by nighthawkers should be sterilised was in any way acceptable then that means every single site of Bronze Age or later that is within the public realm should also be metal detected.
Oh and no HERs on-line because that only encourages night hawkers. In fact we should keep them all secret so that the temptation of knowing where they are doesn't motivate criminals.
Its a bad idea and doesn't address the issues it just sidesteps them.
Steven