 |
| Archaeological vandalism: |
Metal detectorists have illegally dug ‘multiple’ holes at Roche Abbey in Maltby, Rotherham, damaging the grounds of the Grade II-listed ruins. South Yorkshire Police said ‘two incidents of digging and illegal metal detecting activity’ [have occurred] at the site, with the offences believed to have been committed between December 11 and December 18. The force today appealed for witnesses to come forward following what it called a ‘spate of criminal damage’.Now I want to know what significance you can see in the insertion in the original text of the article of the adjective "rogue" as in "rogue Treasure Hunters"? What about "illegal metal detecting" causing damage? Is the damage caused by a signature on a piece of paper or the act of metal detecting an archaeological site in collection-driven exploitation of that archaeological record? Is artefact hunting "not damaging" when the hoiker asked nicely beforehand? What tosh British journalists write...
Which part of "Collection-driven exploitation damages archaeological sites" has twenty years of PAS "outreach" failed to get through to the British public and why?
1 comment:
Actually "rogue" and "responsible" are artificial terms, deliberately invented to manufacture the idea of a "difference" in the minds of the public. Yet they are merely two sides of the same dodgy British coin: both are morally inferior and more damaging than amateur archaeologists.
Post a Comment