close
more_vert

Pilgrim wrote:
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.
Which is probably why the author of this text seems not to know what the "detractors" (actually critics) of artefact hunters are in fact saying. The text consists of the usual straw man arguments and anecdotal "evidence" ... Pathetic.

You would think that after over thirty years of being at odds with the conservation lobby they'd actually know what it is the latter have been saying all along.

We are continually urged by the fluffy-bunny "let's all be friends and let them collect it all away" brigade to "listen" to the opinions of these artefact-greedy "heritage heroes". Let the artefact hunters show they can actually listen to the other side and comprehend what they are saying first.

And these are the ones that would have us believe them when they label themselves "the responsible ones"....

Paul Barford

I have been accused on other archaeological fora of creating "detecting propoganda" becasue I promote good practise within the detecting hobby http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZU7J3NHpoc is one example as well as the UKDFD.

Actions Speak Louder than Words.

Mr Barford & Mr Swift
What would your plans be for the protection of the 'fragile and finite archaeological resource" that many within the metal detecting community are accused of pillaging. What are your proposals to protect (and I don't mean just from 'artefact hunters) from heavy farm practices, chemical disintegration, building and construction?

The figures put out by Heritage Action show increasing amount of eroding artifacts. How do you see archaeologists studying and learning from this data and how would you go about collecting any data that it may offer?

I await your replies.
kind regards

Gary Brun