one of our farmers has sent me these updated aerial pics and has offered to get the JCB out, what you recon the land covers all ages, one pic is supposed to be a roman ville site with the entrance by the trees please advise where to start
well, obviously the farmer knows quite a lot about aerial photographic interpretation. The photographs show a typical piece of lowland cropmark landscape palimpsest with Roman field systems which are probably Roman and prehistoric enclosure ditches. So where would the PAS advise an artefact hunter to put his JCB? Are the PAS monitoring chaps like this with ideas like this? (Oh, and yes, by Britain's wonderful liberal antiquity laws, this is entirely legal).We recall that one of the leitmotifs of the US "I-wanna-collect-it-and-I-don't-care-where-it-comes-from" school of collecting is that metal detecting is done in empty forests and fields and no damage is done to archaeological sites by the removal of these artefacts. The reality is that only a fool would spend weeks searching empty areas when there are many means of locating potentially "productive" sites in Britain - including archaeological publications and aerial photographs. The reality is that a lot of the material being recorded by the PAS comes from the targetting of archaeological sites already known and known about by other means. The collecting of artefacts from them serves no real purpose and is merely destructive of in situ patterns.
.
Vignette: koparka
.jpg)
7 comments:
Hmm. Do people use Google Earth this way ?
mate why dont u f off and do something worth while instead of stalking the forums like some sad pervert
Yes, detectorists use all available research methods to find potentialy good spots to find artefacts.
No, we do not use JCB's and the majority legaly digs in the disturbed top layer of a field.
The same layer that archeologist push to the side when they start the dig...
Hello Mr Craig,
This “doing something worth while” would not involve slouching around a muddy field in an anorak with a metal detector looking for archaeological sites to trash would it?
Now tell me why the forums of so-called heritage heroes need be “stalked”? Why are their forums simply not open for all to see how responsible artefact hunters like your good self comport themselves?
After all, what have they got to hide? Sad perverted porn? Dastardly dealings ? Candid confessions of the criminal? What are you so afraid that people might see and then conclude about your hobby?
Do you think they will conclude that the official propaganda is giving a correct or even the whole picture, or do you think they will conclude with me that it does not?
Now, actually I do see what I am doing as in a way worthwhile. I've spent a long time studying the milieu very carefully, and feel I have observations worth making about issues that tend to be skipped over in more superficial approaches.
I think the collecting of antiquities as it is practiced today is entangled in a web of lies, a deceit which certain interest groups fight hard to maintain. I think that people need to hear the other side of the story than the “heritage hero” crap that the PAS and all the “collectors’ rights” lobbyists pump out.
So as long as one side persists in thrusting their lies about how “harmless” and “beneficial” trashing archaeological sites for collectables is down the throats of the public (who are the real stakeholders in the heritage), as long as they keep striving to keep what they do a closely guarded secret, then I’ll keep trying to get to the truth and writing about what I observe and conclude. My opinion is that in the way it is going on today artefact hunting is destructive and erosive and none of the “justifications” offered have any weight compared to that.
So I'll carry on looking closely at what artefact hunters do and expressing my opinions and the reasdons for them, and you keep hiding and warning people off. OK, "Mate"?
[Please do not hide your profile, no need to be anonymous is there?]
Mr Sven,
[Please do not hide your profile, no need to be anonymous is there?]
Thank you for confirming what I keep telling the US collectors' lobbyists who obviously have never seen a metal detector in use, metal detecting is done on "productive" sites. Stands to reason.
Metal detectorists do use JCBs of course, here we saw it contemplated, in September 2007 Tom Wallace at Myddle Shropshire, visited a hoard findspot and reportedly removed two feet (0.6m) of earth with a JCB before using a metal detector on the findspot and finding gold coins whichg the nation had to buy for £5,850. But it does not stop there, the searching of wayleaves of pipelines and new roads, the stripped areas on housing estates and other developments (with or without the landowner's permission) is common MD practice in the UK, removes the 'noisy' topsoil and reveals the goodies in the untouched layers below.
Does all "archaeology" remove topsoil? I think Mr Sven is confusing the discipline with just ONE of its tools (excavation). Not all archaeologists remove any soil at all in their work, systematic surface survey for example. Some of which is undertaken with the participation of metal detectorists working with other specialists alongside archaeologists so I find it odd that Mr Sven forgets it.
Of course there is no sense in doing a systematic survey of a site from which unknown individuals have removed unknown quantities of unknown types of artefacts (archaeological evidence) from those sites. It is precisely this kind of evidence that "metal detecting" is damaging, whether it is wholly or partially in the top/ploughsoil is immaterial.
Mr. Paul,
You are right there is no need for me to be anonymous. I am not a blogger at this site and do not maintain many profiles in the world wide web.
I have no problems sending you my real name, adress and country of origin.
First I would like to make clear that I understand many of the points you make and on many I actually agree.
The reason I wrote my first post is that I consider myself a responcible detectorist and know that I do not do any harm to the heritage of the country where I live (Hessen, Germany) But I felt offended by your writing style as in all my years of detecting I have not seen detectorists use JCB's. Ofcourse that does not mean it never happened. It does mean it is not common practise.
As I am not a UK resident I will and can not judge about the UK practise and only report from my Hessian point of view (laws on detecting are different per German state)
When I detect, I detect(or field walk) on plowed farmland or on farmland taken temporarily out of rotation. I said before detecting is done on productive sites, BUT during the year sites are ofcourse plowed and seeded, harvested etc. Which in effect means I detect at opportunity. This is ok for me as that way I am as usefull to my city archeolgist as I can be.
This way I have found unknown archeological sites which are now mapped and can be taken into account when new building projects arise.
Ofcourse I can not be certain that on these site no other detectorists remove artefacts, but because of the reported items there is a clear picture of the period of occupation and the borders of the site.
Ofcourse I am aware that excavation is just one of the tools of archeology, but just as you used the example of a JCB, I just stated an observation I made.
In the innercity an other detectorist more often actually checks the spoil heaps at digs, but this is not a standard part of the excavation nor does my archeologist see it as a necesary part of the excavation, hence my remark that hinting at the lower interest of "archeology" for the disturbed topsoil.
Now to get back to my initial reason of my reply. I am a responcible detectorist, who had his detecting permit renewed 3 years in a row by the state archeological department and who cooperates where possible. Still I feel pushed into the same bucket as the people in Italy digging in the night for Etruskan Tombs or the or the Wolgograd relic hunters who dig out foxholes just leaving the bones.
A blog post on a positive experience once in a while would not hurt.
Well,I am a bit confused whether "Vincent" (Vincent what? I do not want your "address" but like anyone, I do like to know to whom I am talking) is Craig or Sven or neither.
Anyway, detecting with a PERMIT in collaboration with the conservation services is what UK detectorists would fight tooth and nail to avoid. Personally I think that is what would solve many of the problems inherent in the current UK "system". You let me have some positive experiences of that sort of permit-guided collaboration and I'd have no problem posting them here.
I really am not putting you in the same "bucket" as these oiks, the post is clearly labelled "in the UK", it says it talks of stuff I found on a UK detecting forum.
But you see the point is what we did NOT find in that thread. No immediate response from the PAS (doing "outreach" apparently). No immediate response from responsible detectorists suggesting that what he was saying was not what responsble detecting is about, just a lot of people continuing the thread what a good place it would be to go looking for collectables. And that is what is so annoying - but of course UK detectorists will ALL claim to be what Minister Lammy called "unsung heritage heroes" they will all claim to be responsible (ie not nighthawks). Now frankly Mr "Vincent" if you want observers to stop treating the collecting of archaeological artefacts as a single series of related and damaging phenomena, then it really is up to the collecting community to sort out the wheat from the tares - to marginalise the irresponsible element, to take control of their own hobby. That is not my job, it is yours.
In its current undifferentiated state, the overall assessment can only be that it is damaging and erosive.
Please join a UK detecting forum (I've not seen you on any - are you?) and tell them what is what. Stamp out nonsense like using JCBs rallies on archaeological sites and all the rest of their tomfoolery.
Post a Comment