1.) In 2009 when the archaeologists first organised a detecting survey, the new deep seeking machines hadn’t been invented. So in 2012 when they went back they were “stunned” to find another 90 pieces and said: “It’s absolutely amazing. In the last search they used top-quality equipment to go over the area, which they use to find underground stuff in Afghanistan. They were absolutely certain there was nothing else down there.” But actually, what both US and British forces were using at the time (and subsequently) were Ebex 420H machines which have little depth capability (mines are mostly at shallow depth) and are not recommended by the manufactures for use in iron contaminated soil or for finding very small targets.and as always, British ("wottaLottaStuff We Got") archaeologists will studiously avoid addressing that question. Metal detecting artefact hunters "are our partners" and "responsible metal detecting" is "a good thing" that "helps archaeology' and the words Collection-Driven Exploitation of the archaeological record shall never cross the lips of the archaeological mainstream, all complicent with the Ixelles Six and their collector-hooraying nonsenses and carefully staying well away from any discussion that might lead to the conclusion that really we owe it to society and the heritage to change the current laws that fail to regulate the damaging Collection-Driven Exploitation of the archaeological record and the antiquities market. Because it is too much bovver.
2.) That second survey was itself unsatisfactory despite having revealed some new objects that were judged part of the original hoard for very few (if any) of the new deep seeking machines were used and most of the searchers had older machines. So it was a “partial” search at best, with the same likely outcome as before: some objects missed.
3.) By contrast, from soon after the first survey all nighttime scruffs could have had the new equipment that was light years ahead of what the archaeologists were describing as “state of the art” for as early as 22 October 2010 we highlighted that “Minelab has just launched the GPX5000….it can easily find small objects at 24 inches” (15 inches below most ploughsoil), and 6 years later on 22 October 2016 we reported Minelab had launched the GPZ which, they said, “could find gold 40% deeper than the GPX“. Against that background the claims by archaeologists of the adequacy of “two detailed surveys” and “geophysics and trial trenching” are sadly and tragically deluded.
4.) I took a series of photos of the site over several weeks in February 2013, showing many footsteps and deep holes which I believe show pretty conclusively that nighthawking was happening. What metal objects did they find so far down? Coke cans and plough fragments, 30 inches below the plough zone? Or bejeweled golden Anglo Saxon objects which surpassed all the others but had to be broken apart and melted down to avoid prosecution? You tell me!
The Staffordshire Hoard fiasco was from start to finish botched and bungled, and failed to get the archaeological treatment it deserved. Although the work on the finds is swallowing up huge resources, even that is producing results that are far from satisfactory (that unhappy 'helmet' for example) and quite clearly, no change will occur the more archaeology tries to paper over the cracks by concentrating on the bread and circuses:
But like it or not, its the objects that engage and educate the public.Bread and Circuses? why not add some ancient aliens too? - I would say archaeological outreach involves presenting actual archaeology, not superficial dumbdown. As for, "its the objects that educate the public" I would respond that objects do not do the educating, it is their presentation that does that - but merely presenting loose objects and their narrativisation has limitations. the problem is that loose OBJECTS are all we've got because Mr Herbert was doing artefact hunting and not a survey, Collection Driven Exploitation is not archaeology. the PAS was set up to get that point across and for 20 expensive years, has utterly failed... see 2003 PAS Aims.
W odpowiedzi do @PortantIssuesActually, quite a lot if you are a real field archaeologist and not just a pretty-finds-fondler.
We have had two thorough investigations, what more can you do with a ploughed field?
The time to get serious about dealing with damaging Collection-Driven Exploitation of the archaeological record and the antiquities market had passed well before builder Terry Herbert put on his wellies on a June day back in 2009. Yet, still, with fiasco after fiasco (StaffsHoard, "Gloucestershire Licking Doggie hoard", Lenborough and all the rest) loudly trumpeted as "archaeological successes" in the national press, like climate changer, where we've arguably reached tipping-point, this problem too is getting worse.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment