16th January 2008, 12:14 PM
I feel a bit scared to jump into the fray here, but Tom, you asked what you thought the programme did for public perception of detectorists? I can tell you that my boyfriend (who has no experience of the archaeological/detectorist community) wasn't impressed by the younger detectorist at first. He thought the guy came across as a shyster, fixated on material reward for the site, "full of p*** and wind", was his phrase. Given that after two years the guy was so willing to work with archaeologists, I'd put that down to careful editing. My boyfriend thought the reason they wanted to work with arkies is because archaeology validated their activities (detectorists, don't shoot me - his words, not mine!)
He also made the point that it seemed as though the archaeologists had their hands tied, whereas the detectorists were in a much better position to criticise where trenches were/were not placed, as they did not have the same professional limitations or concerns, and were clearly not knowledgeable about the ins and outs of archaeological practice (understandably). Maybe better communication between both was necessary here.:face-thinks:
Also, Tom, can I ask why public perception of either side is important? These two detectorists, prior to declaring their find, said they had absolutely no experience of working with archaeologists and plainly stated they were suspicious and uneasy about it. Do you think it was public perception that led them to think this way? If so, then Time Team has shown that arkies are not just good-natured, fluffy-sweatered, cider-swilling hippies (as the programme usually depicts), but are viewed by some in a much more sinister light, i.e. the patronising, tweed jacket toff type. Unfortunately, public perception can be pretty rigid, and it would be nice if both sides could accept that their is variety and diversity in each communities, good and bad guys, responsible and irresponsible etc.
He also made the point that it seemed as though the archaeologists had their hands tied, whereas the detectorists were in a much better position to criticise where trenches were/were not placed, as they did not have the same professional limitations or concerns, and were clearly not knowledgeable about the ins and outs of archaeological practice (understandably). Maybe better communication between both was necessary here.:face-thinks:
Also, Tom, can I ask why public perception of either side is important? These two detectorists, prior to declaring their find, said they had absolutely no experience of working with archaeologists and plainly stated they were suspicious and uneasy about it. Do you think it was public perception that led them to think this way? If so, then Time Team has shown that arkies are not just good-natured, fluffy-sweatered, cider-swilling hippies (as the programme usually depicts), but are viewed by some in a much more sinister light, i.e. the patronising, tweed jacket toff type. Unfortunately, public perception can be pretty rigid, and it would be nice if both sides could accept that their is variety and diversity in each communities, good and bad guys, responsible and irresponsible etc.