close

Full version available at
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk /pages/our-hobbys-detractors.html">http://www.ukdfd.co.uk /pages/our-hobbys-detractors.html

Gary Brun
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

garybrun wrote:
Full version available at
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk /pages/our-hobbys-detractors.html">http://www.ukdfd.co.uk /pages/our-hobbys-detractors.html

Gary Brun
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

Commendable, but...Until detectors are compulsorily licenced, and until the law backs it up, you are only ever going to be dealing with those already compliant.

For those who may be unaware -
The official Code has all the major archaeology bodies stating: Responsible detecting means REPORTING ALL FINDS TO PAS.
CBA has just reiterated on Britarch : NOT reporting all finds to PAS is IRRESPONSIBLE.
This article comes from Mr Brun's site (set up by him and a self-confessed ex-dabbler in nighthawking recently "outed" by Mr Brun when they fell out which provides an ALTERNATIVE database for those who "for whatever reason do not feel able to report to PAS". In other words, officially designated irresponsible detectorists. The site, unsurprisingly, has zero support from PAS or any other archaeological body and its "alternative" code of what is responsible is self-written, self-serving and completely without official endorsement.

The article decries HA's estimates of detectorist numbers and the number who report to PAS. Strange. Our estimate of the number of detectorists had reference to a multiplicity of estimates by detectorists and is lower than any of them. And our estimate of the number who report to PAS is no estimate at all but comprises the stone cold solid published figures from PAS.

As for its vision of detectorists as heroic rescuers, the HA advice to landowners puts some perspective on that claim:

"Some detectorists claim artefacts are best removed from the fields to avoid deterioration. This is NOT the official view. Some artefacts deteriorate but most are best left alone. Removing them without proper procedures and recording robs them of any context and deprives society of all future opportunity for study.

Detecting is NOT rescue archaeology. That requires a perceived official need and appropriate procedures, not random sampling of certain artefacts for recreation or profit and (for the most part) their annexation by individuals who tell no-one. Whoever heard of doing something unilaterally and then telling the persons affected they had been done a favour?

If you want to rescue archaeology Mr Brun, ask your local archaeology service if and what they want rescuing and do it as part of the very comprehensive guidelines laid down for such exercise by EH. Don't do it on your own without getting everyone's agreement and without letting THEM dictate whether, where and how. To do it otherwise and claim you have done it for our sake is simply unsustainable. The members of TMA have heard it all before - from the PR Department of Tarmac.

garybrun wrote:
"Context, from an archaeological perspective, relates to the depth and relative positions of buried objects in an undisturbed environment, and it provides valuable information about their age and use. The key phrase, however, is ‘in an undisturbed environment’. The vast majority of land searched by metal detectorists is cultivated agricultural land, and the objects recovered are from the ploughsoil."

Context also refers to the find in relation to other finds in the locale. One person hoicks a Romand Brooch out of the ground and bungs it in a drawer. Next weekend, someone else comes along and does the same thing. One of these people lives in Daventry, the other is visiting from Ludlow because all his favourite sites are "stripped out". They never meet; don't belong to the same club, report to the same FLO (if they do at all). As far as history is concerned - as far as cultural continuity is concerned - everything is shrapnel, disseminated indifference. Licencing is the only way to enforce a mandatory responsibility in your hobby.

By the way. It's easy to get on here, isn't it? Getting on to MD'ing Fora is subject to controls, advisory e-mails, and draconian measures more akin to the KGB. Is it any wonder that you don't exactly get a good press?

Peace

Pilgrim

X

Ohmygod! I’ve mad a terrible mistake! Metal Detectorists really are the saviours of our heritage……yeah: right.


1. Instead of saying “all responsible hobbyists detect in accordance with codes of practice that address this situation….” why doesn’t this article say that “all responsible hobbyists must detect in accordance with a single code of practice that addresses this situation: the Portable Antiquities Scheme”?

2. Why does a website that is apparently keen to promote “responsible metal detecting” and “good practice within the detecting hobby“ promote the UK Detector Finds Database (UKDFD) - a “hobby-based self-recording scheme” (wow! that's got some authority, eh?) alternative to the PAS on it’s pages? Surely the PAS is the resource for all metal detectors?

I believe that the UKDFD was set up as a response to the PAS because the PAS was asking too much of certain sections of the hobby, and setting up the UKDFD was a calculated move designed to undermine the PAS. In so doing, the UKDFD has made it easier for those without scruples to profit from our national heritage. It should be shut down. Feel free to convince me otherwise...


Peace

Pilgrim

X

Why don't you guys stop pussyfooting around and start calling these "detectorists" or whatever what they really are: looters?

A spade's a spade.