tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post7000996042301665610..comments2024-03-27T04:46:33.198-07:00Comments on Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: British Heritage Protection in Action: “Charity Metal Detecting Rallies”, A racket exposedPaul Barfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-17874355552936731952011-08-22T07:12:36.255-07:002011-08-22T07:12:36.255-07:00Discussing the truth with detectorists is invariab...Discussing the truth with detectorists is invariably tiresome, like discussing vegetarianism with cannibals. They offer no logic only false and platitudinous justifications. And always, always, a tone of injured innocence. But I really can't resist pointing out the following to "Edem"....<br /><br />1. You can’t possibly be an amateur archaeologist AND a metal detectorist – either you think pocketing stuff for yourself is OK in which case you're a detectorist or you disapprove,in which case you're an amateur archaeologist, you can’t do both. As Paul says, you’re illogical.<br /> <br />2. Once and for all: disturbed plough soil is rarely devoid of spatial and other information so detecting in it is certainly often damaging. That’s not a debating point it’s a fact. As is the fact a lot of detecting is on undisturbed pasture - try Central Searchers for one, they don't give a damn. <br /><br />3. Your claim that 99.9% of holes dug by detectorists are 2-12 inches deep isn’t a defence it’s a confession. See this survey of farmers http://farmingforum.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=6860 (that’s a proper survey, Ms Winkley, as the respondents don’t have a vested interest in lying!) – three quarters of them say they plough in the 4 to 9 inch range and 94% plough shallower than 12 inches.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-42392060203995368012011-08-22T02:54:19.219-07:002011-08-22T02:54:19.219-07:00:..."and taking it home..." well quite. ...:..."and taking it home..." well quite. For most of these people it's clearly nothing to do with landscape. Have a look at old Edem's (or whatever he claims his name is) post above this, any signs of "connections with the landscape" there? Absolutely none I can see. <br /><br />the same goes for what passes for "discussion" on their forums, in the trade magazines (Searcher, treasure hunting) or whatever.<br /><br />Edem here talks matter of factly about destroyed sites and ploughing to a depth of FOUR FEET, but all he writes here about is "being lumped in the same basket as other metal detectorists"...Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-62164640456397224522011-08-22T02:26:38.472-07:002011-08-22T02:26:38.472-07:00Thanks for the heads-up Paul.
I empathise with y...Thanks for the heads-up Paul. <br /><br />I empathise with your feeling of a special bond with that landscape, I have the same myself with the Avebury landscape along with thousands of other amateurs. People coming in and helping themselves to parts of it, as metal detectorists do, invariably offends very deeply on both an emotional and logical level. You simply CANNOT do that and yet feel protective of a landscape which is why the questionnaire is so inappropriate and pointless. And potentially very damaging. No doubt virtually 100% of detectorists will profess feelings for the places they detect in, whereas a quick look over a hedge to a rally will reveal something very different going on – personal acquisition, the more the better. <br /><br />Concern for the landscape my eye. It’s a hobby and it involves collecting stuff and taking it home. No amount of propaganda will mean that there are other than ignoble things going on over that hedge. And that includes endless press releases by PAS and golden PR opportunities offered for free to detectorists by Ms Winkley. <br /><br />Here’s a book about Landscape. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pwuc6n66U9IC&lpg=PP1&dq=walsham%20The%20Reformation%20of%20the%20Landscape%3A%20Religion%2C%20Identity%2C%20and%20Memory%20in%20Early%20Modern%20Britain%20and%20Ireland&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />She should ask detectorists if they've read it. Most would say yes no doubt. Then she should look over the hedge at any grabfest and consider what is REALLY going on. I thought academic research was about seeking the truth not letting people build a false picture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-45848430537790449582011-08-21T21:15:55.546-07:002011-08-21T21:15:55.546-07:00Wait, wait. You - anonymous person - call yourself...Wait, wait. You - anonymous person - call yourself a "metal detectorist" but then castigate me for "putting all metal detectorists in one basket"? You do not want to be "put in the same basket as metal detectorists that support <b>charity rallies</b>"? WHY is that "offensive"? You sir or madam are simply illogical. <br /><br />If you are one of the white sheep "responsible metal detectorists" about which we hear so much (so, they'd be the ones that according to you <b>don't</b> go to charity rallies?) and a fellow archaeologist, then why in blazes do you come here hiding your name? My name is Paul Barford, I put my name under what I write. What are you hiding? <br /><br />In any case what I wrote is I find <b>artefact hunting</b> offensive. I do. It is a form of rape, plunder, violation of the historical record which is a finite and fragile resource which needs to be protected not exploited. <br /><br />So how would you describe what you do with your metal detector? In what way are you an "amateur archaeologist"? What do you consider - since you do not use the terms as synonyms - to be the <b>difference</b> between artefact hunting and archaeology (and I do not care if the PAS says you all are, it can be easily argued that the PAS is wrong, not that the PAS will ever stand up and take part in any such discussion).<br /><br />In rape, the depth of penetration and where it happens is immaterial, the violation is the important factor. If you were an amateur archaeologist, you would appreciate the random but selective removal of elements of the archaeological record distorts it, even (especially) if its a surface site, making its interpretation impossible. Like if somebody goes to a murder scene before the police get there and take away some of the items (could be "on the surface", "in a field") as a souvenir and touch and move the other things. <br /><br />Geez "Edem" (not real name) where on earth do you live that the farmers "plough four feet deep"? Their fields must look like the Somme.Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-68069709541923379422011-08-21T12:21:55.248-07:002011-08-21T12:21:55.248-07:00I dont usually comment but I thought I would just ...I dont usually comment but I thought I would just say how offensive I find it that you put all metal detectorists in the same basket! I have been detecting for about 20 years and I am also an amateur archaeologist. When you say that detectorists start 'hoiking holes in the archaeological record' you should maybe mention that 99.9% of ALL holes dug by detectorists are between 2-12 inches deep. Then perhaps you should also mention that 99.9% of ALL detectoring is done on farmland and farm fields that are ploughed to a depth of roughly 1-4 feet on average. Now please explain how a hoel of say 6 inches is invading a non-existant archaeological record due to 100's of years of ploughing that goes way beyond the depth of metal detectors?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11926233204683166587noreply@blogger.com