HER in N York wants everything sent

[BAJR Host]

North Yorkshire have made the following request... tyhey want everyone to send everything to them... please let everyone know... I have a nail in my pocket I picked - it may be 19th century... but I better send it

You gotta laugh

quote:in response to comments on HER's, the system can cope. Here's how...

For the record, North Yorkshire County Council HER DOES want to know about every artefact, ecofact or site found in our area. If anyone on this list has ever found any artefact or ecofact or done any field work (even if it found nothing) in North Yorkshire (not the National Parks - they have their own HER's) please send the information to me. If you know someone not in this list (Britarch) who has done any of the above, please encourage them to send the information to me

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[garybrun]

The strange thing is on the Britarch forum a certain member is harking on about iron nails & dross finds that detectorists are not recording them and that archaeologists are loosing the information.
I would just like to go on record that most detectorists dont dig iron and leave the iron in the ground for archaeologists to find. :face-stir:



Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[Paul Belford]

Some context might be helpful. The quote that Hosty has put up is actually an extract from the latest post in a rather lengthy and as usual very polarised debate on Britarch originally entitled 'what is the difference between archaeologists and treasure hunters'. In effect this is a continuation of the endless and utterly tedious metal detecting debate which has been going on since about 1992.

Nick Boldrini's entire post can be read here. His reply also includes coments by Gary Brun (pro-detecting) and Paul Barford (pro-archaeology). Both have also posted on this forum in the past. The archive of the full debate is here. (Actually in an earlier post, Hosty's efforts at Water Newton were praised by both sides - although they have got him into hot water in other contexts).

It is worth pointing out that the request by North Yorkshire HER is to send [u]information</u>, not actually physical stuff, and in reality we should all be doing this anyway as professional archaeologists (shouldn't we?).

This specific post was made after some considerable debate about the relative value placed on various finds. As far as I understand the Britarch debate it seems (as ever) to be polarised over the notion of value.

Metal detectorists seem to place monetary value on all their finds, consequently finds which have no intrinsic value (eg. objects which aren't decorative or worked items in non-ferrous metals) are usually discarded - or collected and sold for scrap. This material includes iron nails and other material. As a group, metal detectorists also tend to place a high value on individual freedoms, preferring to celebrate the English tradition of slightly eccentric anti-establishment libertarianism.

Archaeologists on the other hand place cultural and historical value over monetary worth. They prefer all finds, regardless of their nature (so including things like slag, dross, bent nails etc. which metal detectorists ignore), to be placed in their proper stratigraphic context, and for the record of that context and its contents to be properly archived in a publicly accessible place. As a group, archaeologists tend to place a high value on society and community, preferring to celebrate the English tradition of developing slightly eccentric systems for a hazily defined public benefit.

Because of these two value systems in operation in English society, the debate will never be 'won' by either side. It will just go on for ever and ever and ever. One side is arguably middle class and Guardian reading, the other side is arguably working class and Daily Mail reading. Of course the extremists in both camps fail to take into account the notion of working class Guardian readers and middle class Daily Mail readers. Hopefully someone will do a proper anthropological study.

[BAJR Host]

I guess the odd wording of the original request means that as general public won't know what a Roman nail looks like or the date other pieces of iron etc then they all have to be handed in for ID to check... I know that I had some fab packets of 19th century pottery and nails handed in... and no they did not end up on the HER... the thought of being swamped with hundereds of finds is a bit scarey! [hm]

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[BAJR Host]

Agreed Paul, people should look at Britarch to see the whole sorry 'debate'. However... as I said above... as archaeologists.. yes.. we do put the info to the HER... but the public do not have our specialist skills... so would have to send the artefact for ID first.

The other intersting comment is about what happens to the iron - from what I have seen, it is discriminated out... unless its a BIG tractor piece or similar.... shotgun cartiges etc.. are found, and discarded.. I would expect that all finds of 'value' - and I, like you put the hazy archaeo-value on them.. should be recorded... I don't care how, I just say, record. You are quite right that the debate will never be won... I prefer to just get on and do something positive (like quite a few others) - it is just a shame I was hobbled this year.[hm]

I did have to laugh at the Water Newton stuff... as it was indeed praised - and even seen as a model (though the full reality of what happened to me over the past year - was truely vicious - and in the end .. shall we say... I was 'guilty' of ensuring that a proper record was made...rather than just watching and ranting - its a topsy turvy world)

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[garybrun]

Hi Paul.
You will see that I bowed out of the discussion after I could see that it was going to be taken along the roads you are talking about. I concluded it with this link http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/pages/our-hobbys-detractors.html
I think I could say I was also polite in my debate and had no "snide" comments.

The main subject of the debate was the PAS system... then what the PAS database and UKDFD database record... which eventually was turned to metal detecting.

If you look at it from the point of view that one man can constantly attack and try to downgrade work and efforts that are being made in both sides of the "Guardian" reading and "Daily Mail" camps. there are only three metal detectorists that speak out on that list against this false propaganda.

I myself read the "Times" & "Financial Times".
But the "Times they Are A Changing" and I wish a few would acknowledge that instead of dragging up old articles from ten years ago to support their outrageous statistics.





Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[Paul Belford]

As I understood it the point of the PAS was to assist members of the public with identifications and encourage them to send a record to the HERs. The problem is that as archaeologists we require a much higher level of record keeping detail and archiving quality than most people. This is true across all of our work - I am regularly asked why we have to use film for photography and not digital, or why I think that architects drawings are insufficiently accurate for historic building recording.

In this case the archaeological ideal is a very accurate grid reference for each and every find, together with depth and soil information. In theory, with modern hand-held GPS systems, it should be possible to plot every find to within a metre or so. Indeed it is quite probable that many metal-detectorists do this anyway (?). However whether or not this is done is irrelevant if the resulting records are not made publicly available for wider research purposes. For archaeologists the only acceptable public record is the local HER. Some metal detectorists find local authorities difficult to deal with, and prefer to develop their own registers. The problem is in making sure that all of the information can be found by everyone.

My own view is that a lot of this debate is actually not about metal detecting at all, it is about 'ownership' of the past. One group perceive that another group want to engage with the material remains of past societies in a way which is not theirs. The metal detectorists see a monolithic authoritarian middle-class elite trying to prevent access to knowledge. The archaeologists see a lawless mob of ill-informed enthusiasts destroying the very basis of that knowledge. Both sides have a point, and 'moderates' on both sides acknowledge that.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument (and my own personal opinion is much closer to Paul Barford's than Gary Brun's), it is extremely unlikely in real life that any British government will ever make metal detecting illegal. Sufficient safeguards theoretically exist already, and the public prefer limited police resources to be spent on catching drug dealers than arresting people for digging up Roman coins or putting PVC double glazing in their 16th century house.

Therefore for me the only viable solution is to try and explain to the public why we (archaeologists) like to be very anal about recording and archiving etc. Since this takes a long time and is difficult to do through the written word, I tend to avoid entering into debates about it on public internet forums*, and prefer to do public archaeology events and actually talk to people locally.




*oops, I seem to have got sucked in


Sorry Gary I hadn't read your post before posting this, however I agree it is entirely possible to hold contrary views and still have a civilised discussion. In fact I myself have contrary views on most subjects.

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Belford
Therefore for me the only viable solution is to try and explain to the public why we (archaeologists) like to be very anal about recording and archiving etc. Since this takes a long time and is difficult to do through the written word, I tend to avoid entering into debates about it on public internet forums*, and prefer to do public archaeology events and actually talk to people locally.

Exactly... that's the way to do it.
There are not enough doers and many hide behind the power of the keyboard to try and destroy the positive.
I put my money were my mouth is and I am actively involved spreading the gospel of recording.
They are also a few others who I know who also stand up for what is right and yet get punished by their own organisations. Sad Times.






Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[BAJR Host]

Much of the debate is carried out using 'what if' scenarios - what if the bit of metal is a cannister shot, what if the detectorists dig into the subsoil, what if the ludicrous Heritage Action artefact erosion counter is real.. etc... hard facts... that's what I like.

Action and facts...

The battlefield rally on a known battlefield with nothing recorded.. Not something I could agree with.

The rally, where there is adequate and sensitive recording? Yes (if only more people would step forward and support)

The individual who records with PAS/UKDFD/local museum/local county .. lovely..

My concern is the stigmatising of an entire group of people, which creates a schism and antagonism.. thus ensuring that the very thing that 'we' as archaeologists want, is moved just out of reach...

I always say... don't tell people... ask. Its amazing what a bit of 'please' can achieve. Rather than foaming and getting angry.

oh no... I'm sucked in too! Anyway... its my fault in the first place!



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu