23rd December 2005, 04:09 PM
Thanks for the input Gary.
PMP - Please show the quote where I state that
As Gary stated, I made the point with respect to lone detectorists -
Most detectorists, believe it or not, are not in a position to be able to afford a GPS. Many are using detectors which were bought some years ago, usually as a gift or after saving up. So a GPS would be seen as a luxury.
I don't believe I have misunderstood what you said, or
The problem with detectorists, as far as archaeologists are concerned, is that they don't (or won't) record details of the artefacts they find. So my question was aimed at finding out what information would be needed to satisfy the minimum requirements for recording a find. The answer .... Do a full archaeological survey.
There is no way that any detectorist is going to change from little or no recording to carrying out a full survey (at his/her own expense) to satisfy the demands of a few archaeologists.
So perhaps we can be realistic here. I promise I will fully record and survey every field I work on with my detector, and do what I can to encourage other detectorists to do the same, if you promise to put an end to the use of JCB's during archaeological excavations, enforce the HSE standards on all sites where archaeological digs or watching briefs are being carried out.
Does that sound like a reasonable request? Probably not, but if you were serious about the recording of finds by detectorists, you would say yes and do what you could in order to save the valuable information that would otherwise be lost. If nothing else, it could always be done in the name of co-operation and compromise.
But I am realistic and know that there is no way either of you can pull those sort of strings. So perhaps we can reach some sort of middle ground where detectorists are not drastically changing their methods overnight, yet producing enough information that will enable any future archaeological excavation in the area of the finds to have something to work with.
No detectorist that I know of carries a tape measure around with them when detecting. They do have maps of the fields they search and usually mark on the map the location of the find. Granted, this is not ideal, or even very accurate, but it does show the rough location of the findspot. This, along with a proper identification as provided by a local FLO, should have enough basic information for someone doing basic research into local history.
Do you really believe that if I were to go along to a MD club and tell the members that they now have to carry out a full archaeological survey, including report, before they begin searching, in order to keep the archaeologists happy, I would get a standing ovation? (I probably would, but only so they could throw me out the nearest window
)
I hope this has cleared up some points.
PMP - Please show the quote where I state that
Quote:quote:
Well I am very disappointed in your response. You ask 'what is acceptable', I say so, and then you say 'actually we can't be bothered'. No wonder you are widely regarded as a bunch of vandals.
As Gary stated, I made the point with respect to lone detectorists -
Quote:quote:
At present, I can't see any lone detectorist carrying out a full field survey.
Most detectorists, believe it or not, are not in a position to be able to afford a GPS. Many are using detectors which were bought some years ago, usually as a gift or after saving up. So a GPS would be seen as a luxury.
I don't believe I have misunderstood what you said, or
Quote:quotebut I do believe you have not understood what I said.pectacularly miss the point!
The problem with detectorists, as far as archaeologists are concerned, is that they don't (or won't) record details of the artefacts they find. So my question was aimed at finding out what information would be needed to satisfy the minimum requirements for recording a find. The answer .... Do a full archaeological survey.
There is no way that any detectorist is going to change from little or no recording to carrying out a full survey (at his/her own expense) to satisfy the demands of a few archaeologists.
So perhaps we can be realistic here. I promise I will fully record and survey every field I work on with my detector, and do what I can to encourage other detectorists to do the same, if you promise to put an end to the use of JCB's during archaeological excavations, enforce the HSE standards on all sites where archaeological digs or watching briefs are being carried out.
Does that sound like a reasonable request? Probably not, but if you were serious about the recording of finds by detectorists, you would say yes and do what you could in order to save the valuable information that would otherwise be lost. If nothing else, it could always be done in the name of co-operation and compromise.
But I am realistic and know that there is no way either of you can pull those sort of strings. So perhaps we can reach some sort of middle ground where detectorists are not drastically changing their methods overnight, yet producing enough information that will enable any future archaeological excavation in the area of the finds to have something to work with.
No detectorist that I know of carries a tape measure around with them when detecting. They do have maps of the fields they search and usually mark on the map the location of the find. Granted, this is not ideal, or even very accurate, but it does show the rough location of the findspot. This, along with a proper identification as provided by a local FLO, should have enough basic information for someone doing basic research into local history.
Do you really believe that if I were to go along to a MD club and tell the members that they now have to carry out a full archaeological survey, including report, before they begin searching, in order to keep the archaeologists happy, I would get a standing ovation? (I probably would, but only so they could throw me out the nearest window
)I hope this has cleared up some points.