16th January 2008, 10:39 AM
OK, ill throw my thoughts into the ring. In my experience, co-operation between metal detectorists and archaeologists is improving. I would make a distinction between metal detecorists and treasure hunters here. The distinction I make (my definition only) is that metal detectorists (what some people on the forum have now termed amateur topsoil archaeologists)report their finds be it to the portable antiquities scheme or a local government archaeologist. In my experience (as an informed outsider) is that the Portable Antiquities scheme has started created a swell of opinion where many responsible metaldetectorists see it as responsible to report finds. However, there are still many treasure hunters legally working on land who do not report their finds (im not getting into nighthawking here as that is another matter again).
However, I am well aware that there is also opinion in the MD community (as exampled in the Ainsbrook programme) that the information that they produce is spirited away not to be seen again. I think this is untrue in that we have the PAS database and there is good feedback of information at club meetings etc. that FLO's attend (and also the wrtten information that they provide for funders). However, I have come accross this perception. This is for me a key area where relationships between 'archaeologists' and 'amateur metal detectorists' needs to be improved (please I accept that I am generalising here and in practice some people are both).
So the two key problems for me given the state of play in this country are: 1. How do we all get more finds to be reported/recorded. 2. How do archaeologists (an I think responsibility is with professionals on this one)make detectorists feel more involved in the history of their findings.
I havent thought about the answers in detail too much. But to start thinking about my point 1. I think the 'trust' issue that we have been talking about needs to be worked on, and secondly perhaps there could be incentives for responsible detectorists. Perhaps grants for handheld GPS' could be made available to prolific finders (Im aware that this also enters a whole new problem in that the PAS is feeling a financial pich at the moment and evrything comes down to if there is money available).
The solution to my second point I think is a lot harder. I think I would like there to be a move away from the PAS dealing mostly with the history of objects and bring the interest back to the finders sites as a way of making non-archaeologists feel more empowered in the archaeological process. Of course, the artefacts in themselves are vast datasets for very many facets of research, as Mr Hosty reminded me after a drunken outburst. BUt I would like to see PAS finds be used more in field survey, detcor surveys etc etc. so that the archaeology of the site where objects were found becomes the interesting thing and not the objects themselves. Im aware that MONEY is a huge problem and that this would be a long process, but the rare examples where this has taken place sucessfully, for example placing hoards into context (im not talking about Ainsbrook here!), suggests to me that this is the next opinion swell to tackle. I would like to see a detectorist community using and contributing data to the Historical Environment Record as much as the PAS database.
Please dont flame me, as these are only my thoughts and I dont claim to have the answers, and Im also generalising about interest groups, these are just observations from my research experience
However, I am well aware that there is also opinion in the MD community (as exampled in the Ainsbrook programme) that the information that they produce is spirited away not to be seen again. I think this is untrue in that we have the PAS database and there is good feedback of information at club meetings etc. that FLO's attend (and also the wrtten information that they provide for funders). However, I have come accross this perception. This is for me a key area where relationships between 'archaeologists' and 'amateur metal detectorists' needs to be improved (please I accept that I am generalising here and in practice some people are both).
So the two key problems for me given the state of play in this country are: 1. How do we all get more finds to be reported/recorded. 2. How do archaeologists (an I think responsibility is with professionals on this one)make detectorists feel more involved in the history of their findings.
I havent thought about the answers in detail too much. But to start thinking about my point 1. I think the 'trust' issue that we have been talking about needs to be worked on, and secondly perhaps there could be incentives for responsible detectorists. Perhaps grants for handheld GPS' could be made available to prolific finders (Im aware that this also enters a whole new problem in that the PAS is feeling a financial pich at the moment and evrything comes down to if there is money available).
The solution to my second point I think is a lot harder. I think I would like there to be a move away from the PAS dealing mostly with the history of objects and bring the interest back to the finders sites as a way of making non-archaeologists feel more empowered in the archaeological process. Of course, the artefacts in themselves are vast datasets for very many facets of research, as Mr Hosty reminded me after a drunken outburst. BUt I would like to see PAS finds be used more in field survey, detcor surveys etc etc. so that the archaeology of the site where objects were found becomes the interesting thing and not the objects themselves. Im aware that MONEY is a huge problem and that this would be a long process, but the rare examples where this has taken place sucessfully, for example placing hoards into context (im not talking about Ainsbrook here!), suggests to me that this is the next opinion swell to tackle. I would like to see a detectorist community using and contributing data to the Historical Environment Record as much as the PAS database.
Please dont flame me, as these are only my thoughts and I dont claim to have the answers, and Im also generalising about interest groups, these are just observations from my research experience