tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post7617491111370967725..comments2024-03-27T04:46:33.198-07:00Comments on Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: Strategic report strategically alteredPaul Barfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-68154462139368716322009-05-27T03:07:46.861-07:002009-05-27T03:07:46.861-07:00So it contained potentially actionable material, i...<I> So it contained potentially actionable material, it seems. Thank goodness the matter has been rectified. </I>Well Marcus, the 'second issue' version of events at this particular site that was withdrawn did not in fact. It was a perfectly neutral account, corresponding closely to this: http://www.detectorists.net/news1.html.<br /><br />I think British archaeologists are so worried about criticising any aspect whatsoever of "metal detecting" that the moment one of them says "hang on there..." they back down. <br /><br />The final report was published only AFTER EH accepted it. Now it turns out that they accepted (and presumably already authorised payment for?) something that when challenged they were not prepared to stand by. What message does that give out about the worth of this report? What else was changed after publication? <br /><br />Pathetic.Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-56910104690625674192009-05-27T01:36:13.611-07:002009-05-27T01:36:13.611-07:00Fascinating stuff! So it contained potentially act...Fascinating stuff! So it contained potentially actionable material, it seems. Thank goodness the matter has been rectified.<br /><br />That link contained more though. Two points stand out –<br /><br />First, some advice to the authorities: <br />“So why not include a request to provide guidance on how to recognize a responsible detectorist? Perhaps ask them to produce their Federation photo-identity card and current insurance? Responsible detectorists will all have one.”<br /><br />That’s a porky, isn’t it? (I hope that’s not actionable!). A FID or NCMD card offers no more reassurance of being a responsible detectorist than a bus ticket since neither organisation requires members to comply with the Code for Responsible Detecting and stress it is merely voluntary – a sentiment which the memberships appear to embrace with great enthusiasm judging by PAS’s statistics on the numbers that report finds to them. The recommendation is therefore ludicrous and could have no effect other than to grievously mislead landowners. It is to be hoped that the authorities will not be party to such a claim.<br /><br />Second, a very telling reaction to the idea that efforts should be made to integrate metal detecting into the archaeological process, including development control briefs. It is clear what the authors of the report were thinking of when they wrote that. But here is the reaction on the FID website: <br />“I’m surprised that detectorists across the nation aren’t all jumping with joy over that recommendation. First dibs at new sites? On the state?”<br /><br />!!!Marcus Preenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03603874627751387853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-92058871095459467072009-05-26T14:33:16.037-07:002009-05-26T14:33:16.037-07:00I have just found this which seems to suggest the ...I have just found this which seems to suggest the reason why Oxford Archaeology changed the Final report of the Strategic Study. <br />http://www.detectorists.net/news4.htmlPaul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.com