15th January 2008, 10:45 PM
Gary,
I'm rather irritated to come back after trying to placate Oz, saying 'I'm sure Gary's point wasn't a general criticism', only to see you've said 'I accuse all archaeologists in my view of professional negligence'. Well thanks for that; this response is tempered by a few very deep breaths.
I think you are somewhat optimistic in your expectations of what metal detectorists can bring to an ongoing excavation. Unstratified finds aren't really all that useful when it comes to answering the type of research questions this kind of work asks. The results of metal detectoring can undoubtedly be used in many other interesting kinds of research, but all of which sadly fall out of the remit of developer funding. Metal detectoring is also a great method for finding sites (on infrastructure schemes, for instance) and MDs are used, and paid, to do that.
You also seem optimistic in your understanding of what we as professional archaeologists can achieve. OK, so MDs might be available for free, but that doesn't mean the organisation comes for free. Is it worth it? Quite possibly not, considering all the other things one might achieve with that time. Should I spend what spare time I can scrape up organising volunteers to try and locate unstratified finds, or reading more of the bottomless pile of journals relating to the site, or talking to experts in obscure aspects of the data? Yes, I should do all of these things, but I like to go home to my bed sometimes.
Also, would you mind easing off on the inverted snobbery, by the way. It's as unfounded as it is counter productive.
Finally, to answer your strangely exasperated query of what I want of you, I asked you to comment on how you thought the various detectorists were portrayed on last night's Time Team (anyone remember that?) and the implications of that. I wasn't having a dig (if you'll pardon the pun).
freeburmarangers.org
I'm rather irritated to come back after trying to placate Oz, saying 'I'm sure Gary's point wasn't a general criticism', only to see you've said 'I accuse all archaeologists in my view of professional negligence'. Well thanks for that; this response is tempered by a few very deep breaths.
I think you are somewhat optimistic in your expectations of what metal detectorists can bring to an ongoing excavation. Unstratified finds aren't really all that useful when it comes to answering the type of research questions this kind of work asks. The results of metal detectoring can undoubtedly be used in many other interesting kinds of research, but all of which sadly fall out of the remit of developer funding. Metal detectoring is also a great method for finding sites (on infrastructure schemes, for instance) and MDs are used, and paid, to do that.
You also seem optimistic in your understanding of what we as professional archaeologists can achieve. OK, so MDs might be available for free, but that doesn't mean the organisation comes for free. Is it worth it? Quite possibly not, considering all the other things one might achieve with that time. Should I spend what spare time I can scrape up organising volunteers to try and locate unstratified finds, or reading more of the bottomless pile of journals relating to the site, or talking to experts in obscure aspects of the data? Yes, I should do all of these things, but I like to go home to my bed sometimes.
Also, would you mind easing off on the inverted snobbery, by the way. It's as unfounded as it is counter productive.
Finally, to answer your strangely exasperated query of what I want of you, I asked you to comment on how you thought the various detectorists were portrayed on last night's Time Team (anyone remember that?) and the implications of that. I wasn't having a dig (if you'll pardon the pun).
freeburmarangers.org