I'll not give his name, but indicate that some metal detectorist asked a metal detecting forum near you a notable question [Sun Apr 07, 2013 7:37 pm] " Brooch or Broach?":
These roman dolphin brooches...and too lazy to look it up. This is symptomatic of a general tendency one sees in artefact collecting circles to wait for somebody else to sort out a problem, rather than getting on and doing it themselves. This is part of the reason why there is so little reflection from within the hobby on the effects of the activity and what could be done to mitigate them. This blinkered outlook and general lack of intellectual effort or engagement is the reason why it seems to me unwise to simply leave the resolution of these issues to such a time as artefact hunters and collectors can be persuaded to come around to a point of view that places their resolution as a priority. They never will, and any such pious hopes are, as any closer examination of the mindset of these people will reveal, profoundly misplaced.
Are they Brooches or Broaches?
Don't know the difference
Cheers, [...]
Log on to a metal detecting forum and look around. These are precisely the sort of people the PAS wants to grab more and more millions of public quid to make into the "partners" of the British Museum, archaeological heritage professionals and to whom they want us all to entrust the exploitation of the archaeological record. Take a good look and decide what you think about that as a "policy".
6 comments:
I will tell you, Mr.Barford, why i posted that question.
In the detecting community, i hear lots of people calling them brooches, and then some people calling them broaches. I only wanted to clear it up.
I DID look on google, but again there were some places that said Brooches, and some that said broaches.
Here's a thought. If you hate us detectorists that much, why don't you piss off and leave us be?
Surely you've got better things to do with your time... Like digging 5 ft holes, 100ft long with a JCB. Rather than slagging us all off for digging small 6x6" holes, 5-10" deep.
nonsense man.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/broaches (note the name of a tool - which if you actually look properly, accounts for most of the Google hits)
The only place I could actually see the spelling "broach" used to refer to a brooch (a pretty well-known word in the vocabulary of common-or-garden-English) is on eBay where ignorant folk misspell the name of what they are offering. Oh, and this non-native-speaker: http://www.galinie.co.uk/gallery_412579.html
The word is brooch.
"Here's a thought. If you hate us detectorists that much, why don't you piss off and leave us be? "
Now, why don't I?
So you could just get on with doing what you want to do to the archaeological record you mean, with one person less watching and making comments?
Why would that disturb you? Why in fact do you not want anyone watching and commenting on what you are doing to the country's archaeological record, which belongs to everybody, not just YOU.
Instead of trying to shut people out, let us have full transparency, let's have some dialogue, let us see you properly justifying what you do and how and what you do with what you hoik out, and answering the issues that are raised. Can you do that? Will you?
Even if I went away, the issues would remain to be resolved.
"Why would that disturb you? Why in fact do you not want anyone watching and commenting on what you are doing to the country's archaeological record, which belongs to everybody, not just YOU. "
And what are we doing to the archaeological records? ... finds dug up by detectorists make up probably 80% of all finds on these 'Records', so effectively if it wasn't for us, you wouldn't actually KNOW of these finds and never would.
1) What I said was the archaeological record, meaning that which is preserved in the ground.
2) "finds dug up by detectorists make up probably 80% of all finds on these 'Records'"
Where do you get that figure from? The actual number that was given by those who know during the discussion at the UCS seminar on 10th April 2013 was much less than that, it was just 10%, which mean 90% of sites are just being exploited by artefact hunters, with minimum addition to information. of course if more people were reporting, that percentage might increase.
There is also a vast difference between knowing the findspot of a single loose find, and having recorded the observations on its associations and relationship to other information in the field.
3) "if it wasn't for us, you wouldn't actually KNOW of these finds and never would" .
Object centred view.
So the only rhinos or whales worth saving are the ones you can see? is that your idea of conservation Mr LeBailly ? No thought for future generations and their possible needs?
Silence.
Post a Comment