tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post6786487905304739105..comments2024-03-18T12:47:37.136-07:00Comments on Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: "A Vulgar Quest for Pretty Objects". Is this the best British Archaeology can do?Paul Barfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-19395159497233199182009-10-04T14:08:45.075-07:002009-10-04T14:08:45.075-07:00This is the first time I have replied to this site...This is the first time I have replied to this site.<br />And my name is Simon Haley, yes I am a metal detector, but also studied archeology at night school, and hope to write a paper on the do's and don'ts of detecting.<br />And agree regarding the early post, about the five days, items where removed from the plough soil.<br />But regarding the archeological extraction of the items, I was also shocked.<br />It does not matter if it was plough soil, as the context of the soil in heavy clay would be present on the object, till a finger wiped it of for the camera?Simon Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02381971096774878591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-39277246941219905292009-09-29T05:01:25.279-07:002009-09-29T05:01:25.279-07:00It gives the impression of being extraordinarily s...It gives the impression of being extraordinarily slipshod work. I think that is obvious to even the non-archaeologist. <br /><br />They say the "context is not important" because it was in ploughsoil, but basically what is not documented at the time these things are laying in the soil does not get documented and the importance (or not) of the precise disposition can never be determined. For example if (as has been suggested) this hoard was freshly ploughed up, the distribution and orientation of the items might be able to tell us in which direction the plough travelled across the orignal deposit and what had originally been lying with what. Working backwards from precise information on the attitude and orientation in the ploughsoil might have given us information about how they had lain in the ground before disturbed. If all we have is an "X marks the spot, it was here" record (because I do not see them making any other kind as the objects are taken out before they have been fully exposed in the ground) then obviously this is information we will never be able to obtain. <br /><br />As for the "conservation", as I said, hoiking it out like that runs the risk of pulling out and leaving behind any garnets (and just as importantly the tiny fragments of hatched gold foil under them which give them their "shine"). There could have been organic material preserved in the soil that was still adhering to the objects which came from the original deposit, but we see the archaeologists breaking it off in clods. <br /><br />Basically the video shows the objects being dug up by these archaeologists like potatoes. Well, in fact no, when I dig up potatoes I generally do it with a lot more care than we see here.Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-23757309461711828012009-09-29T04:39:32.629-07:002009-09-29T04:39:32.629-07:00Even to a layman like me this does look a bit slip...Even to a layman like me this does look a bit slipshod.<br />I thought archaeology was all about context and it doesn't look like real care has been taken to find out too much about that.<br />Of course, it's early days and the priority here was to get the stuff out of the ground for conservation. It's where we go from here that's important.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14244692633762380065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-57615251835168969872009-09-28T08:11:29.247-07:002009-09-28T08:11:29.247-07:00The new (BAJR) Federation of British archaeologist...The new (BAJR) Federation of British archaeologists has been talking to Birmingham Archaeology about the contents of their video when asked by a metal detectorist about it (note the archaeologists of Britain are by and large sitting back quite happy about what they see, obviously nothing here strikes them as particularly noteworthy - rather reinforcing the point made by the French). <br /><br />http://bajrfed.co.uk/mod/vanillaforum/vanilla/comments.php?DiscussionID=65&page=1#Item_0<br /><br />Anyway we are told:<br /><i>"the finds were in ploughsoil - deep ploughsoil, and as archaeologists (not students - but real archaeologists) were able to identify that which was in ploughsoil, and that which were in sealed context. The Video quality was maybe not of the best, and really only concentrated on when somebody found something, rather than the 99% of the time when they were carefully digging, sieving and otherwise doing what Archaeological Companies do. What you see is just a bad edit, rather than any evidence of bad practice. <br />Although I winced a couple of times, I know myself that when you are in the field, you can 'feel' when something is ready to come out, and when its not. Additionally, it is important to recognise this was ploughsoil. […] After hearing from BA, I am happy to stand up and say... nothing to see here ... move along".</i> Well, whether or not the finds were "in topsoil" is not the point, its about "real archaeologists" being seen clunking gold-and- garnet metalwork with trowels, shaving sections with spades centimetres from still-buried objects, and yanking objects out of the ground before they (and any loose garnet inlay in it) have been fully exposed. It really creates the most awful impression of the standard of work being carried out by a team which should have been (given the importance of the finds) been the most competent in the region. <br /><br />I hope that is a slip of the pen when the author says that it only shows the moments when the delicate hoard items were taken out of the ground, not the other 99% of the time "when they were carefully digging". I think we would all rather have seen some carefully digging in the vicinity of soft gold objects with loose garnet inlay set in hard clay. That is the one thing we do not see. <br /><br />That the video only showed gold being hoiked out of the ground was also the point being made. No attempt was made to show this as part of a disciplined multi-faceted field project. No attempt was made to show anything more than a glorified treasure grabfest. No attempt was made to show the taxpayer who'd forked out the money to call the archaeologists in, what the archaeologists did, no sieving, no preparation, just grabbing gold from the sides of holes. <br /><br />That was the point being made, about a professional team presenting their work in a professional manner. Is it actually too much to ask? <br /><br />I winced more than "a couple of times", but I wish I could be glad to hear I was the only one.Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-51334522636274246432009-09-26T13:17:19.137-07:002009-09-26T13:17:19.137-07:00Sorry for accusing you of being a metal detectoris...Sorry for accusing you of being a metal detectorist, that's what you get for not using a real name, i cannot check who you are !! Firstly over on one of the artefact collecting forums there has been a lot of anti-archaeologist nonsense and this looked like just another one of them. It was also this: "Frankly speaking, I had the chance to take part at several scientific archaeological field walking in my country (Hungary)" which sounded like a metal-detectory thing to say. Anyway I am glad you are not, it's an unhealthy habit.<br /><br /><br />I think, to be fair, its a difficult site, little bits of fragmented metal in a matrix of heavy clay which forms lumps. Hell to dig, but that is why I would expect a more rigid regime and site discipline (and cleanliness) than we are shown in this video. <br /><br />I personally don't see a problem with iron trowels on this soil, its obviously very heavy clay. I certainly though would not be using it like those people !! Note the trowels shown are all unworn, these are not I think experienced diggers, I suspect students from the University. <br /><br />I agree absolutely about the apparent lack of documentation as the stuff lies in the ground. This video creates the impression of an extremely unprofessional excavation and as a British archaeologist, frankly I am ashamed. <br /><br />Thanks for bringing the video to my attention. I think there are some important questions here to be asked and answered. I hope they are.Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-75889838969033882692009-09-26T12:16:38.851-07:002009-09-26T12:16:38.851-07:00No problem Paul.
It's rather funny for me, th...No problem Paul.<br /><br />It's rather funny for me, that based on my "nasty comment", you supposed, that I'm a metal detectorist.<br /><br />I'm a field archaeologist.<br /><br />As for the use of the trowel, I tried to point out, that according my experience it was a very bad idea to excavate golden and other very fragmentary object with an iron tool.<br /><br />Of course it much less important issue, that on this video they just simply grabbed out the object without any detailed in-situ record, even if these pieces were in secondary context in the ploughsoil.Panopolishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02815430060389237706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-57861401094708589862009-09-26T08:17:50.479-07:002009-09-26T08:17:50.479-07:00OK, you imagine you are a professional unit and th...OK, you imagine you are a professional unit and this is your project, and you are making a video to "show the public" what you've been up to. Is this what you would show the national media? Does this represent the quality of your work? Does this well represent the professional standards to which you aspire? I imagine Birmingham Archaeology is in the IFA, what do the IFA say about what that video shows? I shudder to think what they cut OUT of this film. <br /><br />No, this is very unprofessional, letting the side down totally and there is no excuse for it on what should have been a flagship project for the whole of British archaeology. <br /><br />If that's what it's going to look like they might as well have let the whole Bloxwich Research and Metal Detecting Club go down there and have a dig around, they'd have done it for free, and probably just as well as what we see in this awful video.Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-85902217545594086392009-09-26T08:06:16.723-07:002009-09-26T08:06:16.723-07:00At 0:34 you can see a bit of the grid they laid ou...At 0:34 you can see a bit of the grid they laid out which is at least 4x4, I'd say, and, to be fair, the clips are only of the moments when they found metal (gold) objects, most of which to be very close to the surface. It's impossible to tell what else is going on (recording, screening, etc.) elsewhere on the site.<br /><br />That said, they seem a bit too eager to pull things out of their sections.<br /><br />Imagine what the original finder did over 5 days.John Muccigrossohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06544834631983054987noreply@blogger.com