''Maybe I'm wrong, and society will let them pick random bits out''

Bit's and pieces of non descript broken rubbish,if left as I said....
You seem to think (without) acedemic proof,that their are shed loads of stuff kept etc,
at least if as you say it's in a shed,it isn't on an auction site,that you and your mate make out as and when it suits.
Shed/Auction site ? which one shall we go with?
See link for further info.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nn4l229805308132/

"The results so far obtained are only tentative but suggest that high concentrations of soot, sulphur or phosphate in the soil may have accelerated the corrosion of the investigated bronze objects. The influence of low pH values, though, is less clear."

Which illustrates my point vividly. That corrosion can happen in specific conditions is no news at all and well documented scientifically but to use that as a basis of justification for widespread metal detecting everywhere is just laughable. There is simply no data upon which to justify it.

Either the matter is approached logically or it isn't. If it is then the "Rescue" justification is simply devoid of substance.

"Shed/Auction site ? which one shall we go with?"
I don't know. You tell me. One? The other? Both? Which reflects best on the hobby?

"Bit's and pieces of non descript broken rubbish,if left as I said...."

Well that takes the biscuit. Those bits and pieces of non descript broken rubbish are the whole of the rest of the archaeological record minus the bits that have been selectively removed, mostly without being reported or with adequate NGRs by detectorists. They are the essence of our history, minus some bits that someone has taken upon themselves to extract from their context for personal unilateral recreation.

Not to understand that is to display a lack of understanding of one's actions that is truly profound. But that's exactly why people do it I suppose. PAS was set up to explain it but it has obviously failed to do so in most cases. Which is why the time may be coming when something other than trying to persuade them to act in a socially responsible manner may be considered.

It doesn’t change reality though. The hobby’s not going to be sustained indefinitely on the basis of “we’re rescuers, doing it for everyone’s good” and “we’ll break the law if anyone tries to stop us”. Truth is, its erosion, and done primarily for personal fun or profit and is largely illegal elsewhere. Not a good basis on which to expect long-term survival, especially with such a large number of non-recorders on board. It’ll have to change and it’s getting urgent and you’ll have to ditch the non-recorders somehow (and for your information, a lot of the hobby leaders agree with me and tell me so in private.).

But if you want to say otherwise, go ahead. It’s not me that is having to justify what I do nor am I having to spend this Xmas time signing petitions to persuade lawmakers not to weaken my chances of continuing. Today I’m off to a Heritage Action 4th Anniversary gathering and will be meeting people that spend their time trying to keep heritage in situ on the basis it is a common resource, not out in some field removing that same heritage and saying it is theirs.

In a few years time we’ll still be doing what we do. Will you? Maybe your best chance, if you remain unwilling to ditch your non-recording mates, is to campaign to get us out of the EU! I can't think of any other solutions.

This has gotten boring...

So,

What about the new generation of detectorists that are beginning to rise from the grapple of archaeological control. I hear they are all very pro PAS, and record their lives away. Only thing is...most of the finds being recorded are modern poop, and findspots are, allegedly, not particularly accurate. One was heard saying..."compulsory recording is fine by me".

Could any form of legislation (force) make things worse?

quote:

What about the new generation of detectorists that are beginning to rise from the grapple of archaeological control. I hear they are all very pro PAS, and record their lives away. Only thing is...most of the finds being recorded are modern poop, and findspots are, allegedly, not particularly accurate. One was heard saying..."compulsory recording is fine by me".

That speaks volumes in favour of legislation doesn't it? Not only do loads of detectorists not record but you're saying even the new generation of so called "responsible" recorders aren't really playing ball and are only going through the motions! And I wonder how many of those has signed the petition saying how marvellous PAS is? Altogether not a pretty picture. Glad you painted it, not me.

I agree, not a pretty picture but Id say its perhaps a snapshot of what legislation CAN actually do. So it becomes obvious one cannot force someone to record (legitimately) if they are against it. Banning would really be the only option. Cannot see that happening either, and as long as PAS stays in existence, it remains a very distant notion.

I guess licences could be issued by county archaeologists which could also be renewed anually. But how would they know a true recorder from an imposter?

Myself, I live fairly close to someone who does a bit of detecting so I know a little about it. What surprises me is that so much of what he collects from the fields is in rather a poor state. Mind you, he only searches on ploughed up fields as apparently the ploughing process brings everything to the surface. His view on old pasture is that the older finds are too deep.

Bearing this in mind, maybe detectorists should be restricted to ploughed up ground so as not to disturb artifacts from important positions under old pasture or woodland. I can see "land restrictions" protecting the archaeology & history, which is what everyone wants more of. It might be a good place to start for anyone pushing for more control.

"So it becomes obvious one cannot force someone to record (legitimately) if they are against it. Banning would really be the only option."

I'd hope that wouldn't be true. If detecting is permitted only as part of a pre-prepared programme - and is likely to be refused next time if it isn't done satisfactorily there is a tendency to toe the line. Not abuse proof, I agree, but a big improvement. I think that works pretty well in Northern Ireland - where detecting is subject to a statutory obligation to report all archaeological artefacts. Those who say legislation will lead to nighthawking and lawbreaking tend to avoid mentioning that.

Bearing this in mind, maybe detectorists should be restricted to ploughed up ground

Well they say that 90% of detecting goes on in ploughed fields but even in those there is potential for damage as there may be a horizontal context to be destroyed. If find spots aren't reported or are reported to a poor level of accuracy - which covers the great majority of instances - then that's lost.

As for how to tell a true recorder from an imposter there is a very neat way of exposing a lot of the imposters - ban the sale of freshly detected artefacts. Every detectorist claims his sole motivation is love of history but try suggesting that! It'll turn out to be impractical, impossible and undemocratic!

An interesting big red message on the latest UKDN newsletter -
UKDN supporting the Portable Antiquities Scheme - USE IT OR LOSE IT

.... which put me in mind of my opening remarks on this very thread
[QUOTE]I recall the scores of postings I have made here and on PAS forum and elsewhere over the years, always with the same simple message - not enough people report to PAS, one day the Treasury will decide enough is enough, the hobby must use PAS or lose it.

I guess everything comes to those that wait, even though panic rather than logic brings it about. I can't remember whether it was me or that other rotter, Paul Barford, that first coined the phrase but we have certainly both used it extensively for years, and been blaggarded for it.

So I doubt if either of us will be given any credit for UKDN's recent miraculous conversion from PAS critics to fanatical PAS converts or for having been entirely right all along, but I guess we can live with that quite comfortably.

It seems someone has just written in to The Searcher magazine challenging detectorists to put their money where there mouths are over their distress about PAS funding cuts. He suggests they pay a small fee towards supporting it.

Yet this has been met with (almost) universal horror and derision amongst detectorists Pay? Us? NO WAY!

Fishermen please note.
It is the TAXPAYER that should subsidise recreational hobbies, not hobbyists.

Bit of an own goal really. 10p per detectorist per week would cover PAS's funding shortfall. Which makes the petitions and calls to MPs look pretty dubious I'd have thought.

quote:

So I doubt if either of us will be given any credit for UKDN's recent miraculous conversion from PAS critics to fanatical PAS converts or for having been entirely right all along, but I guess we can live with that quite comfortably.

i thought ukdn was only a metal detecting forum not a body with any power within the metal detecting comunity?

however the number of stickies they put up regarding the pas cuts did amuse many in the hobby.much mirth was also had over the low number of votes regestered on the 10 downing street petition in spite of the sheer numbers of stickies when this forum has 4,000 members.

its obviese many detectorists simply realize what they think doesnt matter or this forum has no where near 4,000 active members.

many in the hobby realize that detecting will be restricted or banned sooner or later,what we say or do does not matter.it will the european union that emerges at the biggest threat to the hobby has it seeks to harminise its laws imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Silaction:
It seems someone has just written in to The Searcher magazine challenging detectorists to put their money where there mouths are over their distress about PAS funding cuts. He suggests they pay a small fee towards supporting it.

Yet this has been met with (almost) universal horror and derision amongst detectorists Pay? Us? NO WAY!

Fishermen please note.
It is the TAXPAYER that should subsidise recreational hobbies, not hobbyists.

Bit of an own goal really. 10p per detectorist per week would cover PAS's funding shortfall. Which makes the petitions and calls to MPs look pretty dubious I'd have thought.

well logicaly,the only way to impliment this would be to license the hobby.ie pop into your post office once a year and buy a license.

and the funds then chanled to towards pas funding.however where would the new cash cow for the goverment stop?

to asume pas is just there for detectorists would be neive,its there i asumed for anyone.

now has 25 million in funding has just been released towards teaching kids culture(trials in certain areas).i see enormouse potencial for pas and schools.

the goverment is talking about 5 hours a week of culture lessons,museams should be playing an important role.you cant expect detectorists to shore up an organisation thats been provided for the entire population to use.

i do apologise,ukdn has 3,000 members not 4,000.

quote:

well logicaly,the only way to impliment this would be to license the hobby.ie pop into your post office once a year and buy a license.

Yes, Not a problem for fishermen.

[/quote]to asume pas is just there for detectorists would be neive,its there i asumed for anyone.[/quote]
Sure. But everyone else finds stuff by chance, only detectorists actively seek it out as a recreation (and some of them sell it).
Anywas 1op a week is haedly worth moaning about is it? If they love PAS so much they should pay it. Or is it that they only love PAS because it preserves their hobby against being restricted? If so, they should still pay it.

quote:

Originally posted by Silaction:

quote:

well logicaly,the only way to impliment this would be to license the hobby.ie pop into your post office once a year and buy a license.

Yes, Not a problem for fishermen.

to asume pas is just there for detectorists would be neive,its there i asumed for anyone.[/quote]
Sure. But everyone else finds stuff by chance, only detectorists actively seek it out as a recreation (and some of them sell it).
Anywas 1op a week is haedly worth moaning about is it? If they love PAS so much they should pay it. Or is it that they only love PAS because it preserves their hobby against being restricted? If so, they should still pay it.[/QUOTE]


i dont have a problem with buying a licence,i am a detectorist first a foremost.but im also a realist.

in my opinion a rear guard action is being faught by a few to keep pas going.trying to stop the inetivable.

its a waste of 55 million in my opinion,the reason its a waste is we dont govern our own country.brussels do.detecting will evenchualy be banned period.

what our goverment or we think is irrelivent.

the archies might think this is great,but if you look at brusels in a slightly larger picture i bet the archies will cry about there kids entering schools where many new kids cant speak a word of english ,or the price of there council tax.hell they aint well paid and soon there will be fewer jobs.

its swings and roundabouts.brusels will lower the quality of life for everyone in the uk detectorist or not.

quote:

its swings and roundabouts.brusels will lower the quality of life for everyone in the uk detectorist or not.

Well that rather expands the discussion but if Europe is seen as a threat to detecting you'll know as a detectorist that the biggest problem the hobby has is the large number of your fellow detectorists who don't record.

Working on your prediction, that Europe will do for the hobby eventually the obvious defence is to remove that main weak spot. Recording detectorists should put far more pressure on their non-recording colleagues to do the right thing, What's wrong with official CoP compliance being mandatory for membership of all clubs and national associations for instance? And why aren't they clamouring for compulsory licensing rather than a voluntary scheme?

Instead, I suspect they'll stick with the "unity is strength" mantra and the "no surrender, keep it voluntary" call - right up to the very day you're proved right and they're subject to compulsory regulation or banned.

quote:

Originally posted by Silaction:

quote:

its swings and roundabouts.brusels will lower the quality of life for everyone in the uk detectorist or not.

Well that rather expands the discussion but if Europe is seen as a threat to detecting you'll know as a detectorist that the biggest problem the hobby has is the large number of your fellow detectorists who don't record.

Working on your prediction, that Europe will do for the hobby eventually the obvious defence is to remove that main weak spot. Recording detectorists should put far more pressure on their non-recording colleagues to do the right thing, What's wrong with official CoP compliance being mandatory for membership of all clubs and national associations for instance? And why aren't they clamouring for compulsory licensing rather than a voluntary scheme?

Instead, I suspect they'll stick with the "unity is strength" mantra and the "no surrender, keep it voluntary" call - right up to the very day you're proved right and they're subject to compulsory regulation or banned. Daft b.......s!

i do record,in fact i visited my local flo a week ago.ironicly he is still waiting for his contract renewal,yes he did look worried.


however and this is where i will seem insane,i actualy think recording should be made compulsory,but whilst its volentry its just that volentry.puting preasure on people is rather hard if they are not breaking any law of the land.

but at the same time the entire process should be speeded up,its often the case that a simple to identify coin can take 5 months to be returned.

many of the flos also seem to have chips on there shoulders regarding detectorists,they seem to forget it could be argued we supply 90% plus of there metalic objects for identification.

another problem is that everyone assumes that every detectorist is in a club or a member of an internet based forum or a member of fid etc,or buys the detecting magazines.

this is far from the truth,ive been refused permision on sevral farms has the farmer themselves detects there land or locals do.

how do we get in touch with these unafiliated people is my point?

even then the farmers themselves can be a problem,i asume you need permision to record and ive been asked not to.do you lie to the farmer sneak behind his back or not record ,its far from clear cut.

its a 3 teir problem,land owner,detectorist and archie.

many archies would love to see detecting banned,but we have so much to offer and they know it,20-30 thousand of us.

many digs are kickstarted by detectorists finds ,done corectly we could be the envy of europe but alas we simply cant get along.

suming up.

licenses should be compulsory,finds over 200 years handed in(none treasure) ,the flos turn over identifying simple to identify items speeded up.

a bit of common sense would not go amis from some rally organisers to,puting huge rallies next to sensative ancient monuments is crass,legal or not.

Well a lot of what you say makes good archaeological sense and more to the point if all detectorists thought that way it would ensure the hobby was safe. As I said, it's the others who don't think like that who are the real "enemies of detecting".

"how do we get in touch with these unafiliated people?"

I must admit if there are many detectorists who don't know they ought to report everything to PAS after ten years of PAS carrying outreach to the detecting community something is very wrong.
A full page advert in the paper ought to do it I'd have thought. But every time PAS try to do anything like that - sending a letter to all farmers for instance - there's a huge outcry from detectorists. (We both know WHICH detectorists and why).

"a bit of common sense would not go amis from some rally organisers to,puting huge rallies next to sensative ancient monuments is crass,legal or not."
Too true. And PAS ought to have the b...s to say so. Once again, it's not just a conservation thing it's a hobby defence thing. They're crazy to show themselves in their worst light.

"i asume you need permision to record and ive been asked not to.do you lie to the farmer sneak behind his back or not record ,its far from clear cut."

I don't agree with that bit. The official line is - if you can't record you shouldn't detect. It might be frustrating but again it makes sense not only in conservation terms but also hobby defence terms. It's all academic though as you and I both know there are loads out there who wouldn't lift a finger for either cause.