All the supporters of metal detecting try to sing from the same song sheet when it comes to the discoveries of their heroes, they all find stuff which "nobody knew was there", which "nobody else would have dug up" (as if digging everything up was in some way a "good" thing) and they all find new sites for the archaeologist. There might be something there to discuss if it were true. Some of my archaeological colleagues, very much to their shame, believe it is and "partner" these artefact hunters. The truth of the matter is that when you look at the evidence, none of this is at all clearcut. From everybody's favourite ARCHI website some of my news scouts are receiving emails expressing the following sentiments:
I imagine that this "find we all dream of" is not the edge fragment of an Eiffel lava millstone associated with 11th century ceramics and food waste from an early mill. I have mentioned Mr Villenueva's article before. It is a pretty telling indicator of the degree to which artefact hunters try to use sources to identify known sites which they then target with their collectable-hoiking. Of course I do not expect many of the archaeologist "partners" of the hoikers will have read it or thought about what it means for them. Which is a shame.Dear ARCHI user, I would love to search every site recorded in the ARCHI database because I know that amongst that data lie the co-ordinates of amazing finds. However, it would be impossible to search even a fraction of the sites listed, but I always wonder who will be the lucky person to unearth the treasures the ARCHI database holds. If you would like that lucky person to be you then I encourage you to read David Villanueva's article In Search of Domesday Mills in the January 2014 issue of The Searcher magazine. I hope David's article will inspire you to continue in your search for the find we dream of. Think on what he has written and then think on why the Staffordshire Hoard was found where it was and I'm sure you will feel enlightened!
No comments:
Post a Comment