I hope this isn't a "Attack Detectorists" Episode - Recently there has been a a concerted effort in bridge building (Not Excavating) between Detectorists, Archaeologists and the PAS I would hate this to spoil things! If I had a pound for every time someone (Usually a non-detectorist) asked me why I didn't pocket the Noble - I wouldn't have needed to! For me and the majority of detectorists, it is all about the Historical value not the monetary value! I'll be watching tonight with hope and baited breath!
Originally posted by Jonathan-S.: I hope this isn't a "Attack Detectorists" Episode - Recently there has been a a concerted effort in bridge building (Not Excavating) between Detectorists, Archaeologists and the PAS
I hope so too Jonathan, but there are no guarantees. This programme was I believe, filmed a couple of years ago, so some of the views may be of the “old school of thinking” ? I just hope they don’t concentrate on the illegal use of detectors, and items being sold on eBay without being recorded, just to make a story
After all, who discovered this site ?
........................................................................ Support the PAS Go with the FLO
Not easy to come to any firm conclusions either way on this one. The two detectorists were giving out mixed messages, either they wanted to do the right thing or they didn't.
Rather confusing
........................................................................ Support the PAS Go with the FLO
I think this was done sensitively towards the detectorists, despite the fact they had sold an amazing amount of artifacts! There was no mention at all of the landowner and how he/she felt about letting the archaeologists on the site (Although I guess this may have given away the location!) - this is a key factor, after all I have always been told by my FLO that it would be the landowners decision! Finally, I think there was one word that was used several times which I think would form the basis of the way forward....TRUST! If we could all do this it would be amazing what we could achieve!
I find the law somewhat bizarre. Surely a find of that significance should be considered of national importance, the detectorists should be compensated for their time and nothing else while the hoard is for the nation.
I was bemused to see the detectorist going on about giving up "his" site and "his" finds. Surely they should be nothing to do with him and his ilk at all but for the nation.
Metal detectoring, I always thought was a harmless hobby that consisted of people trying to find loose change on beaches, not of people strip mining the nations heritage from farmers fields. If ever there was reason for legally clamping down and rewriting the rules on treasure and finds then that programme was it. I was appalled tbh.
I thought the programme gave an interesting glimpse of a difficult debate with no easy answers. (I gather that our laws on detecting are some of the most liberal in Europe!)
I would have like to have seen some input from the PAS, it hardly got a mention. I thought I saw Helen at one of the meetings, it's a shame she didn't get a chance to speak.
........................................................................ Support the PAS Go with the FLO
There is another forum thread on Codename Ainsbrook which I have contributed to ("WW2DIGGER" has asked for opinions) and mentioned the PAS! You might want to take a look!
As has been said, no one comes out of this very well. However I kept getting the feeling that there were things that people weren't telling us, and that there could be more to it than meets the eye.
Questions that are outstanding include why they put the trenches where they did. The answer was a bit woolly, and from my limited experience archaeologists are very careful about where they put trenches, and don't mind being led by metal detector results. Also just why there was reluctance to acknowledge the previous 7,000 items (although that might have been just for the camera)?
For the metal detectorists I was still confused as to what stage they went to the authorities. Some of what they said seemed to contradict too.
It may just how the programme was edited, but I wasn't sure what to make of it at the end.
From what I saw of the programme (slightly less then half) it came over rather as if there was a lack of understanding from the detectorists point of view about exactly how archaeological methodology works.
Reading comments on another forum, I gather that the site itself was under evaluation prior to scheduling. To that end it has to be characterised, which means you have to basically do a limited sample of the archaeology you know about(in accordance with EH or whomevers guidelines)not just chase features which might produce the best finds.
However, didn't see all of it so don't know the full story.
I rather got the impression that it was the discovery of bones that made the detectorists decide that they needed to report the site. If they'd been working it for years (12?) and not reported anything before, why would they have bothered this time?
Originally posted by Jonathan-S.: If I had a pound for every time someone (Usually a non-detectorist) asked me why I didn't pocket the Noble - I wouldn't have needed to!
Ah, that was you was it? Has your hand stopped shaking yet?
Having watched this programme this very afternoon (4oD) it does leave more questions than it answers, and as has been mentioned both here and on the other thread, nobody comes out of it all smelling completely of roses.
