PROTECTION versus EXPLOITATION British Archaeology's "Big Dilemma"

The laws of finding – and keeping – treasure in Britain (msn.com)

"Although academics might harbour "resentments and jealousies" about the successes of amateurs, any ill-feeling is "tempered" by the fact that nearly all of their finds would never show up in an archaeological excavation. "Most of these finds are made on cultivated land," said Lewis. "If metal detectorists didn't find them, they'd just be lost to plowing."

Hmm. Resentments and Jealousies? I really think British archaeology is utterly failing to get the message across. We do nature conservationm not out of jealousy and resentment for the proud owner of bunches and bunches of wild flower ripped out of the woodled snd soon to wilt stuck in vases. Or jealousy that Fred Scruggins has a bigger collection of blown Osprey eggs than any academic might have. Where did MSN get that idea from, and jwhy are conservationists not putting them straight about that? Where do people like this get such ideas about conservation from?

So is the idea of conserving ospreys to get all the eggs we can find in museum cases? Butterfly conservation Professor Lewis, to get them all in nice neat rows pinned to a label in the British Museum Natural History? To get all the statues of teh remote easater Island, where hardly anyone sees them and install as many as we can on the stairwell in the BRitish Museum? Rip all the sculptures off the temples of SE Asis so they can "be preserved" in private collections and museums - after all Professor Lewis, if left in the jungle and caves, "nearly all of them would never show up in an archaeological excavation. If artefact hunters don't find them, saw them off, they'd just be lost to the jungled". yes, Professor Lewis? That's ghow we preserve the legacy of the past in your eyes? I do not see it that way. Besides teh artefact a that are found in ploughed fields but BELOW plough level, we yes, we do not see them there, but that is what iun archaeological parlance is called "undisturbed archaeological record" (I'd refer the learned academic to the Valletta Convention). Then again, a lot of metal detecting is done on grassland, so not ploughed felds, some is done in forests, some in open water. I do not think this Lewisian Argumentation applieds to it all, nor does it make sense as archaeological resource PROTECTION. What it is he is advocating there is some crude form (because tekkies dig blind and tend to keep no real records)of Archaeological Resource EXPLOITATION. Which to choose? What a dilemma for British archsaeologists. Think of themselves, or think of future generations' usage of what tehey leave behind?





he . Then again, a lot of metal detecting is done on grassland, so not ploughed felds, some is done in forests, some in open water. I do not think this Lewisian Argumentation applieds to it all, nor does it make sense as archaeological resource proection. What it is he is advocating there is(some crude form 9because tekkiees dig blind and tend to keep no real records) Archaeological Resource