15th January 2008, 11:59 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by gumbo
A further key point associated with trust between archaeologist and detectorists is over scheduling (also paralleled by conditions now attached to Natural England stewardship schemes). THere is in my opinion a quite ironic situation now occuring where detctorists will find sites and this will allow the landowner to then put the site to set-aside on heritage grounds on the condition that the archaeological deposits are preserved. This then means that the detectorist loses his/her patch and no more finds (which allowed the landowner to enter into the stewardship scheme in the first place) will be made. Am I the only one who thinks this is a stupid situation, a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas! Things like this need to be thought about on a national level or trust between some detecorists and archaeologists will not develop.
Hi All
Whoa, hang on here chap, the method of discovery of archaeologically sensitive sites which are protected through public funds is immaterial. So what if its a MD who "finds" the site or a county arch whilst assessing a ELS or HLS application. The PUBLIC FUNDS(not shouting just emphasising the words as they are vital) are only made available if the site's future is protected. Are you saying that sites found by MDs should be treated differently because their PUBLICLY FUNDED protection might annoy someone?
I think you have approached this issue from the wrong direction in your thinking. If MD are contributing to the greater knowledge then surely they would be happy that their finds have ensured the protection of a site. If in fact they are annoyed because they can no longer detect on that site then doesn't that imply putting personal enjoyment over national interest?
I have received quite a few (sometimes annoyed) questions from MDs concerning why they should declare finds (to the PAS) because then if a landowner wanted to develop their land they would have to pay for archaeology. The implication being that this was a good reason for not declaring. This is the same type of issue you have raised and requires the same response which I always give:
Would you rather, therefore see archaeology be destroyed without record because it might inconvenience the developer?
In response to your question:
Would you rather see public funds made available to protect sites not spent and sites continued to be ploughed because it might inconvenience the detectorist?
The whole point of all publicly funded heritage schemes is to serve the greater good not to enhance an individual. There is a quid pro quo in operation, Britain interprets the Valletta convention with a light touch and detectorists don't have to get licences but they have to self-regulate in return.
Steven