Scottish archaeologist David Connolly ("BAJR") enthuses about the results of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in the country south of the border of his own: Just in case you did not see this [Past Horizons article called "Increase in archaeological finds recorded by the public" ]. [It] Shows that things really are changing and it is thanks to you (well most of you)[,] archaeologists (well many of them)[,] the PAS[,] the UKDFD (it helped move the PAS in the right direction... ) etc etc... and the result..? Brilliant! [..] another step to saying recording works and detectorists actually do great work."Recording works". What does he mean? What does he mean when he says artefact hunters "do great work" ? By plundering archaeological sites for collectables? Are these really "brilliant" results when those 90,146 objects [let's talk records, 48400 records, 45890 contributed by metal detectorists] comprise just a fraction of the number of items that were removed from the ground in 2010 (some 270 000 according to the HA model).
More to the point, what on earth does he mean by the comment that the UKDFD "helped move the PAS in the right direction..."? As has been pointed out many times, the United Kingdom Detector Finds Database is a pirate private detector finds showcase formed to resemble but in fact is in opposition to the primary aims of the PAS. What on earth does the Scottish archaeologist mean to convey by such a statement?
.
.jpg)
1 comment:
I’ve always doubted that Mr Connolly actually has a fundamental disagreement with us (apart from his belief that we should be less critical of detectorists). After all, he’s an archaeologist with archaeologists’ blood in his veins, not detectorists’, how could he not be fundamentally on our side?
Well, he now seems to have confirmed that he is, in unmistakeable terms:
“I believe that properly recorded and accessible finds are a benefit to all - to Paul, he feels it is only looting and destruction of known sites.”
That looks very much like a case of severe self-hoisting upon one’s personal petard – for what proportion of finds can he possibly claim are properly recorded – and worse still, what miniscule proportion can he maintain remain accessible to the public? So isn't he letting slip, in rather unmistakeable terms, that the overwhelming proportion of metal detecting fails to conform to his - and our - personal definition of “a benefit to all”?
I find that immensely encouraging. The difference appears to be decorative not structural. It’s amazing how digging below the flim-flam layer and right into the nitty gritty is invariably worthwhile. I guess that’s archaeology, innit?!
Post a Comment