 |
| Metal detector survey results compared with results of geophysical survey (Keith Westcott, Institute of Detectorists) |
But whatever school you represent, I would have thought that an archaeologist will see that data are lost when any objects are dug out of archaeological contexts by artefact hunters with inadequate or no recording of that context (not the ovbbject discovered, but the context of discovery/context of deposition). This discussion revealed that it seems not every one sees it that way:
Durham FLO Ben Westwood @FLODurhamFLO Obserwuj Obserwuj @FLODurhamFLO W odpowiedzi do @PortantIssuesI will leave aside the second of those questions, the FLO asserts (as so many people do) that 'artificial' chemicals in the soil are damaging artefacts. On this topic, because of such claims, I have talked with soil chemists and experts in precisely the field of fertilisers, and read a lot of the literature (and even did an experiment to check out what one metal detectorist claimed)*, and I am of another opinion on this. It seems to me that the people that make that assertion are going on 'common sense' reasoning and using emotional arguments and not any cold hard soil science. The same goes for the plough-damage trope (look at these axes for example), I believe the effect in both cases is exagerrated to bolster the 'whip-it-all-out-now' approach to the archaeological heritage. I've written this all up (with Nigel Swift) and it will be appearing soon, and I really do not want to waste time trying to convince those who've already made their minds up - like Mr Woodward (I asked him a question on Twitter that, if he thought it through fully, should lead to the solution - but he refused to answer, probably because he did not understand the significance of the question).
Putting your insults to one side (sic!), plough soil has no context other than spatial location. Those artefacts in plough soil, subject to seasonal ploughing/chemicals are being destroyed. Responsible detecting under these circumstances rescues archaeological data
But this issue of ploughsoil lacking context is a particularly disturbing element of the discussion, because it is used as the excuse for so many things. So I want to look at it (again, because I have written a number of posts here on this topic, but mostly as a response to what metal detectorists have said/written). This pair of posts comes to mind from PACHI Thursday, 6 March 2014: 'Focus on UK Metal Detecting: What's this all about? and 'Focus on UK Metal Detecting: More on What's this all about?. Nice pictures.
The people that gaily trip out this trope seem never to have taken part in any fieldwalking programme. I wonder how and why that is in the case of a professional archaeologist, surely this (like basic surveying and excavation) should be part of the practical excperience of every single undergraduate degree course in archaeology. I studied in UCL in the centre of London, but they took us out to Sussex on the Downs (drizzling it was) for two weeks fieldwork training. I did some more over one Christmas with Mike Pitts just after that. But as an amaterur both before and after that I did a lot in the UK, Roman villa, quarry sites and pipeline routes, and so on. I've done it as part of projects I was involved in too. I thought everyone has, no? I do not know why Mr Westwood seems to be so dismissive of this kind of evidence and the techniques needed to use it, how one goes about documenting and then analysing ploughsoil scatters. Goodness knows there is enough literature in Britain on it, a lot of the methodological discussion - a huge bibliography - is in English.
It is particularly odd that he says this, because Mr Westwood reposted on Twitter a map done by the 'Proposed Institute of Archaeologists' (reproduced at the top of this post as a good example of what amateurs can do with metal detectors when they are not just adding objects to their private collections). This shows how finds in the ploughsoil relate to the buried archaeology (in this case revealed non-invasively by geophysical survey). So how Mr Westwood can do that and then claim that 'topsoil has no context', I really do not know. But how can he be employed to do archaeological outreach to the public while holding such narrow views?
 |
| Mallakastra Regional Archaeological Project |
 |
| Fieldwalking results at Monte San Nicola. |
No, Mr Westwood, topsoil has a context, and ploughsoil has a context, and that does not just consist of a ten-figure NGR of where a collectable came from, but - and above all - what was in the artefact scatter around it. Buddying up with artefact hunters who see that soil only as a source of selected collectables for them to pocket for their own personal entertainment and profit does not absolve any archaeologist from seeing that the current policies on Collection-Driven exploitation even of sites like these is leading to permanent damage to their potential use as archaeological evidence. In fact, as a source of certain kinds of evidence, they have been destroyed by artefact hunters. And as part of the archaeological outreach to the general public who pay for their posts, PAS staff should be properly informing the public (millions of whom are neither collectors nor artefact hunters) of the actual situation, and not pretending nothing bad is happening. Because it is.
UPDATE 301.10.2018
I see that Mr Westwood, instead of engaging in discussion with ideas he apparently finds more complex than 280 character soundbites, is complaining over on Twitter about this blog post (punctuation and spelling as in original):
Not. What. I. Said. Mal-information (again) and a deliberate miss quoteWe obviously do need to examine just what it is that Mr W. is saying is a "deliberate" [sic] misquote and thinks constitutes malinformation. The text above is cut and pasted verbatim from what he himself tweeted (please check for yourself). This, nota bene, was after I had suggested that if he wants to discuss the issue, a text longer than 280 characters is more convenient, he disagreed, he reckons that putting it in shorter texts makes his meaning clear. I am not really all that convinced of that...
The only way to make it clear what is going on here is to put it alongside the texts that the one I quoted was a response to. I see that now we need to see here what they were, and you make your own minds up whether I am "deliberately misquoting" the archaeologist here, or whether he's now trying to backtrack ona silly remark he made and put the blame on me.
So, excuse the lengthening of the post for Mr Westwood's benefit. This part of the thread starts with his odd object-centred remark (post #5 in that thread) that no archaeological evidence is destroyed when finds are removed by artefact hunters without any record (because I suspect he did not know what I meamnt by that, I hope it is now clearer to him). He blurted out that unrecorded finds: 'Not necessarily being destroyed, rather extant but unknown'. That's what he wrote here. So I replied in 280 characters (post #6 in that thread):
His answer to that, again object-centred (tweet #7 in that thread):But that is a collector's object-centred view, NOT a context centred one of (real) archaeology. Contexts/assemblages are destroyed daily all over country by thousnds of artefact hunters removing material from them and the information lost. What is there not to understand there?
There is an eighth post where I suggest that he look back at the earlier tweets as it seemed to me he was talking at cross purposes, and then I answered tweet 7 (with tweet #9), I wrote:Of course its archaeological. I'm an archaeologist, not a collector. Data is not lost when objects, recovered from arable plough soil, are reported. Rather these finds/data are saved from certain destruction
Now I think it is clear by this point that we are twit-tweeting at cross purposes. I clearly write contexts (the ones exploited in CDE - so including ploughsoil ones) are destroyed by removing objects FROM them' and 'dug out FROM archaeological contextswith inadequate or no recording'. I am talking about ploughsoil scatters. I do not think Mr Westwood is. In his attempts at abbreviated 'clarity' he first of all talks about individual objects that are 'not necessarily being destroyed, rather extant but unknown' and data that are 'not lost when objects, recovered from arable plough soil, are reported'. He is clearly talking about a different kind of data from me. His is clearly object-centred, mine site-centred. This is the context in which I think it is entirely justified to see the comment (and I'll put Tweet #10 of that thread in full):Which brings us back to Heritage Action's point, is PAS representing the interests of archaeology or collectors? An archaeologist will see that data are lost when any objects are dug out of archaeological contexts by artefact hunters with inadequate or no recording.
Putting your insults to one side, plough soil has no context other than spatial location. Those artefacts in plough soil, subject to seasonal ploughing/chemicals are being destroyed. Responsible detecting under these circumstances rescues archaeological data
'Those artefacts' is directly related to 'archaeological data' allegedly being rescued by the Good Collectors. Additional evidence that the term 'spatial' used in that tweet means PAS-recorded findspots and nothing else is the odd little bit that comes later but is still part of the same FLO mindset that is the context for that tweet (#23 in that same thread).
W odpowiedzi do Researchers can look at the Db to see what else was from that field, is a fairly simple process. If there were others there that the finder missed, then we effectively have a sample, just like every other archaeological project ever.
*sadly not entirely satisfactory, as the memory card in my camera was faulty so the documentation went astray. But the metal detectorist was wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment