The course's title seems to me to be suffering from the usual British problem of not being able to name a spade a spade when it comes to artefact hunting and collecting. What is 'metal detecting'? The name is used in the UK euphemistically and non-euphemistically to mean several things, not all of which have a place in an archaeological project. One wonders why the course was not named in a more explicit manner (see below for one probable reason).
We learn from the website that 5.75 hours of 'tuition' on Sat 24 Nov 2018 will set each participant back 'from' £67. Mmmm. Here's what the website says:
Of interest to the detectorist and archaeologist, this course looks to explore how the metal detector and detectorist practitioner, can become an important element in the processes of archaeological mitigation. We will evaluate how ‘stratigraphy’ and ‘context’ relates (sic) the ‘Code of Practice’ through to an understanding of archaeological investigation and recording in the planning process. We look at typical documents such as method statements and the Written Scheme of Investigation, to what will be required and expected of the detectorist when on site and further preparation and reporting for pre and post site attendance. This introductory course will cover specific survey methodologies such as PDAS: Partial and Detailed Artefact Surveys and will be the precursor to further courses that focus on the embedding of metal detector use into professional practice. With the intention of becoming a Research and Educational Institute, the Association of Detectorists have been establishing the body over 18 months with overwhelming support from archaeological and heritage bodies and institutes. Our aim and mission is in developing a nationwide educational program based on archaeological and conservational principles, we look to encourage detectorists whose motivations are based in the research and preservation (sic) our National Heritage. With courses to enhance the ‘hobbyists’ awareness of ‘contextual landscape’ to the highest level of ‘consultant practitioner', which focuses on embedding metal detecting into professional practice and creating a UK ‘Bank’ of consultant detectorists, to assist on archaeological projects.The last sentence is a bit wonky. and what about: '11.30am Archaeological methods: the detectorists' prospective', eh? Come on University of Oxford, in proper English please.
It may well be a surprise to the organizers that in many European countries, 'metal detector use' has long been 'embedded in professional practice' in both surveys as well as mitigation projects. I wrote on it here in Poland in the mid 1990s. But this session is not really about the use of the tool itself (which is not dealt with at all in the session's programme) but getting recognition for 'detecting practitioners'. I'd like to ask Dr MacDonald to specify what, more precisely, is meant by that term, in what activity have these particular people become such expert practitioners, and in what way does that relate to the aims and ethics of archaeological practice (ethical issues are not in the programme either).
Note the juxtaposition 'The ‘Code of Practice’ and ‘Treasure Act’' (why is that here anyway?) and 'What do detectorists want in return?' (ie for complying with them maybe?). Will archaeologist participants be encouraged to go onto a detectorist forum or two to find out for themselves? I think if they did, they'd find that more enlightening than Mr Westcott banging on about 'bridge building'. To have a bridge you need foundations. What is the actual evidence from the social media of the existence of anything at all that could serve as a real foundation? Go and look.
With reference to [and omitting the scare quotes] the proposed evaluation of 'how stratigraphy and context relate to the Code of Practice’, they do not. The current 'Code of Practice for Responsible (there's that phrase again) Metal Detecting in England and Wales' discuss neither, except to say leave them alone. On an archaeological project the stratigraphy and context need to be documented in the same way as for non-metallic information and certainly cannot be put in the hands of amateurs who've done a five hour 'course' run by a guy who cannot handle writing proper sentences.
It figures that it is in Britain that we see (allegedly) 'overwhelming support from archaeological and heritage bodies and institutes' for the idea of establishing a so-called 'research and educational institute' for Collection-Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record (the proper name for the mealy-mouthed euphemism 'metal detecting'. Such an entity (run by Mr Westcott no doubt) would act as yet another smokescreen to obscure the real nature of the exploitative hobby that so many British archaeologists seem to support. I think it is they who are being exploited by the artefact collectors.
UPDATE 17th June 2018
Keith Westcott seems to have more than one problem with this text. He writes to a colleague (I quote verbatim):
[...] Nigel, I wonder if you can help me? I have dedicated my last 10 years to voluntary and charity causes and received praise for my work. I have now worked for 18 months trying to find a way to create a new direction for detectorists who are not 'in it for personal gain'. My person opinion on metal detecting is that, information that can be gained from the discovery of an artefact in most cases, is more valuable than the market value for the item devoid of its context. Obviously, some finds are very much random losses however, I have been working to demonstrate how finds in the plough soil can be hugely significant to identifying archaeological features. (please see below) Whilst archaeologists have supported my efforts, Paul Barford has viciously attacked me, the course and the principles agreed by the heads of all major archaeological bodies involved in the initiative. Its knocked me back as I expected that it would be the detectorists against the proposal would be vocal in their concerns. Of greatest concern is I have been unable to post my reply to his blog to defend myself. My response to Paul is below, and I wonder if you could help me in this issue? Many thanks for your consideration. Best regards, Keith WestcottHmm, not being able to post a comment here is nothing to do with me or anything I have done. Try again Mr Westcott, many of your metal detecting mates seem to have no such problems, especially the abusive, foulmouthed ones. Can't keep these 'ambassadors for the hobby' away.
I think there are a few things to cover in his intro.
1) I note the usual emphasis on the connection between Collection-Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record (CDEAR) and 'voluntary and charity' work done by its practitioners. It's like saying a mass murderer is not really a 'bad' guy, as he helps old ladies cross the road and loves animals. The two, Mr Westcott, are totally unconnected.
2) Some people will praise the mass murderer who helps old ladies, it does not mean that they are right to do so. Just because some archies praise some tekkies, it does not mean that all archies must think that all tekkies are doing the right thing, even when they are within the law. As an archaeologist with a conservation background, I do not think (and have the right and reason to think) that Collection Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record is in any way a 'good' way to treat that record. Furthermore I believe that archaeologists who say it is in some way a 'good thing' are wrong, whether they qualify that or not. I am prepared to argue that (and do here) that it is a huge problem, are they going to show me where I am wrong? They may 'praise' Mr Westcott (who's obviously eager for it), but they are not so eager to come up here and produce reasoned and substantiated arguments, which stand up in the wider context of archaeological practice, to say why what I say is wrong. The heads of all major archaeological bodies involved in the initiative will talk to Mr Westcott in private. They don't really seem all that keen to shout out in public, still less in an archaeological forum, that looting (CDEAR) is OK.
3) This idea of
detectorists who are not 'in it for personal gain'The scare quotes are Mr Westcott's. Why are they there? First of all I have been going on for many years about that label 'detectorists'. What does Mr Westcott mean by it? Because I think he means 'artefact hunters' , and the ones I am bothered about here are 'artefact hunters engaged in collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record'. And what are they exploiting it for? Well, as anyone can see, most of them to build personal ephemeral collections of historical artefacts (especially coins). Now, I'd be interested to hear Mr Westcott explain to us all how somebody hoiking out and pocketing archaeological evidence which is merely treated as collectables/hedge fodder (depending on who collects what) is not doing it for personal gain. They are doing it to gain a personal collection of artefacts. And I do not care how many old ladies they help across the road, how much money they raised for disabled donkeys by their charity rally, or how many times they've used their machines on an archaeological survey in the meantime, it is the erosive collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record they do in between times that is the problem. Getting that idea into a tekkie head should not require too much effort, I would have thought. I could be wrong.
4) Its a platitude to say that through 'metal detecting', valuable information 'can be gained from the discovery of an artefact'. We all know that, the PAS bangs on about it daily and has been doing so for twenty long years. But in many cases (and sadly the metal detectorist hoiking it out blind from above in a spade-size hole) is not in any position to judge when it is the case and when it is not , valuable evidence would be preserved if a select collectable artefact which fits a detector's 'settings' were left in its burial context. In other words, equally valuable information is destroyed when an artefact hunter detects it and then digs it up and puts it in his pocket. Archaeology and archaeological inference building is not just about 'digging old things up' (that may come as a surprise to some PAS-supporting archaeologists).
Here is Mr Westcott's reply:
The course programme says that some time will be spent in discussing 'how stratigraphy and context relate to the Code of Practice’. I suggested this was chalk and cheese and Mr Westcott confirms that. The 2017 Code is not in any way applicable to work on and with an archaeological project. My concern about the cost was why private individuals would fork out this money to get (just an) introduction to something that they'd learn for free (without the fluff) by taking part in an archaeological project and working alongside archies. We will see what comes of the idea of 'an educational program which is deemed useful to assist archaeologists' ....Response to some of the points raised by Paul Barford:
As the person behind the proposal to form an educational and research institute, I have looked to approach the initiative from the archaeologists prospective. I have discussed and shaped the proposal through meetings and in communication with CIfA, CBA, Historic England, PAS, ALGAO and other prominent archaeologists. The support I have received from the archaeological community has been overwhelming.
I do need to emphasise though just in case there is a suggestion I have done something illegal, in response to your claim that HMS Ramilies is a protected site, I have specifically enquired with HER Devon and Historic England who confirm that it is not protected.
In regard to the 'how stratigraphy and context relate to the Code of Practice’ the 2017 Code of Practice' states: If detecting takes place on pasture, be careful to ensure that no damage is done to the archaeological value of the land, including earthworks. Avoid damaging stratified archaeological deposits (that is to say, finds that seem to be in the place where they were deposited in antiquity)… My reference to a 'detectorist prospective' is to investigate how we can adhere to the code (I have asked a number of Heads of archaeological bodies their thoughts as its not straight forward).
You mention the cost of the course. I have attended a number of courses at Oxford such as 'Stratigraphic Analysis in Archaeology' which cost of 3 times that of Metal Detecting for Archaeological Sites: An Introduction.
The course is an 'introduction' as it will followed by other courses written by our Education Committee. (Prof. Chris Gosden has agreed to Chair). I have been motivated to propose the initiative due to my own concerns in how the interest has developed. However, I am confident that there are many detectorists who are passionate about conservation and preservation, I hope I can help by developing an educational program which is deemed useful to assist archaeologists.
I apologise that my use of the English language is not always up to 'Oxford' levels, I know it’s a failing of mine and I will continue to try harder.
5 comments:
" a UK ‘Bank’ of consultant detectorists"
Why not use a UK "Bank" of consultant archaeology students?
As the person behind the proposal to form an educational and research institute, I have looked to approach the initiative from the archaeologists prospective. I have discussed and shaped the proposal through meetings and in communication with CIfA, CBA, Historic England, PAS, ALGAO and other prominent archaeologists. The support I have received from the archaeological community has been overwhelming.
I do need to emphasise though just in case there is a suggestion I have done something illegal, in response to your claim that HMS Ramilies is a protected site, I have specifically enquired with HER Devon and Historic England who confirm that it is not protected.
In regard to the 'how stratigraphy and context relate to the Code of Practice’ the 2017 Code of Practice' states: If detecting takes place on pasture, be careful to ensure that no damage is done to the archaeological value of the land, including earthworks. Avoid damaging stratified archaeological deposits (that is to say, finds that seem to be in the place where they were deposited in antiquity)… My reference to a 'detectorist prospective' is to investigate how we can adhere to the code (I have asked a number of Heads of archaeological bodies their thoughts as its not straight forward).
You mention the cost of the course. I have attended a number of courses at Oxford such as 'Stratigraphic Analysis in Archaeology' which cost of 3 times that of Metal Detecting for Archaeological Sites: An Introduction. The course is an 'introduction' as it will followed by other courses written by our Education Committee. (Prof. Chris Gosden has agreed to Chair).
I have been motivated to propose the initiative due to my own concerns in how the interest has developed. However, I am confident that there are many detectorists who are passionate about conservation and preservation, I hope I can help by developing an educational program which is deemed useful to assist archaeologists.
I apologise that my use of the English language is not always up to 'Oxford' levels, I know it’s a failing of mine and I will continue to try harder.
Firstly, I ask you to consider my response in the spirit it is written as I’m sure I should be more succinct and eloquent in my reply.
When communicating with your colleague, I should have explained that I was not referring to my charity work as a detectorist, but my ten years in volunteering for many leading Industry roles including the British Standards Institute: representing the UK as a National Expert in related European Standards and as a BSI Committee Chair. My role in charity was as a Director and Trustee, related to Care Homes for Adults with Learning Difficulties. Unfortunately, I decided to step down from my roles to enable me time to concentrate on this initiative.
You have a valid point if I understand correctly, that in your view detecting for personal gain, albeit for personal collections or to sell to other collectors, any artefacts dug up without due consideration as to their context in both stratigraphy and landscape and not properly considered and recorded, whether participating in a charity event or not, renders the artefact devoid of its archaeological context and therefore a loss to the conservation of our heritage?
I know I will now lose us a substantial proportion of the detecting community by saying this, which is not a great way to launch an initiative for detectorists… but I agree.
I have seen personally, through proceedings in Crown Court when I stood before the jury and the subsequent evaluation of a historical and archaeological nature, thanks to the help of the British Numismatic Society, that the information which can be gained from the context of the artefact, is actually much more rewarding than owning the artefact itself.
As I quoted in my initial response, the 2017 Code of Practice' states: If detecting takes place on pasture, be careful to ensure that no damage is done to the archaeological value of the land, including earthworks. Avoid damaging stratified archaeological deposits (that is to say, finds that seem to be in the place where they were deposited in antiquity)
I am again agreeing with you in your statement, that when acting to avoid damaging stratified archaeological deposits ‘in many cases when digging a spade shape hole, the detectorist is not in any position to judge when it is the case or not’. I’m very concerned with how to interpret this advice in the COP. It is obvious that continuing to dig a large hole against the advice of the COP will damage archaeological deposits (COP: stop digging if you find something below the plough-soil), but in pasture, how do you evaluate at the depth of a spade?
In forming an educational and research institute, we are looking to develop methodologies and educate the detectorists to work for, and alongside archaeologists. The will be methods and best practice will be stringent in their conservational rules and abide to the standard archaeologist terms, where finds are NOT the property in anyway of the ‘consultant practitioner/detectorist’ (consultant: a term proposed by a leading archaeological institute).
As a compromise, I would ask you to consider another prospective? Continued...
Cont.... In my opinion, the metal detector is a superb instrument, under-utilised by archaeologists.
Its capability to locate metal artefacts invisible to the eye on archaeological sites, whether in plough or pasture, trench or spoil, utilised by an experienced practitioner educating in survey methodologies and archaeological principles, can bring positive benefits to the conservation and preservation of our portable heritage? Certainly, if there was a comparable instrument which could say locate buried ‘Neolithic flint axes’, would it not be put to great use by archaeologists?
Archaeological practices are rightly considering how best to interact with the community and temporary museums can be a great solution. What better than the additional metal artefacts to be displayed, found by the practitioners normally missed by standard practice, telling a visible, tangible and logical story of the site through the ages?
Rather than an archaeologist who picks up the occasional detector if written into the WSI, utilise the consultant practitioner. There are many detectorists who have the conservation of our national heritage as their motivation and would benefit from the opportunity of education (really, the availability of relevant education should be fundamental to such an interest)
On the other hand, archaeologists who may see the use of a metal detectors as destructive, must well, as I have, stood back and watched the JCB do the work of ten archaeologists, even when we know what is expected below due to geophysical surveys…when we hit it STOP!
Rather than a useful point to defend detecting, I have seen for myself how artefacts are deteriorating in our soils and I think we need to continue some good work out there on the subject.
A final point, archaeology is so commercially driven, there are swathes of the country not touched by the trowel unless a motorway or superstore is to be built. For instance, I have found in discovering a site of national importance, it is extremely difficult to get the support that such a discovery deserves (until we raised the money). Many smaller sites with archaeological features of interest and less expensive to investigate, even the landowners have no idea they are there on their land, leaving them to potential damage from land drains etc.
Paul, I hope you will look to these issues in balance as I hope you will agree that detectorists, through further research and education, have a part to play in conservation and preservation?
Post a Comment