Please, don't delete those quotations.
I have took them from.
So, you see what is the situation.
Most of them would like to give all artefacts back,
but they can get a fine or go to jail.
Destroing heritage, archeologists do the same when they
checking land for buldings and do maybe 2 holes
with not checking everything perfect.
Usually artefacts are on the top of the soil.
If you will invite metal detectorists to the land what was checked by archeologist.
You can save a lot of artefacts.
I think the bigger problem is disregarding all of the people who are using metal detectors.
Grimes in Ireland is maybe 1000 people who are using metal detectors.
Are you an archaeologist? I'm assuming you are not as your discussion here is based on the (IMO) opinions of people who have no actual understanding of Irish archaeology, therefore disregarding the very simple reasons put forward against the use of metal detecting in this country by those perhaps better qualified to make these decisions. That you do not like or agree with that is fine, but coming on here and saying that 'most artefacts found etc etc' would be handed in is nonsense. As for your refusal to even acknowledge the simplicity of maintaining the stratigraphy, context and integrity of a site until such a time as scientific assessment and excavation may take place also reveals your interest in the 'artefacts' only and not its archaeological context.
I'm not, but my knowledge in this subject is bigger
than normal person.
I thinkin that some normal people (after training course)
should be allowed to use metal detectors on the arable field away from monuments but it need to change the LAW
because in fact it's impossible to get license for using MD.
There is new NMI legislation being drafted.
I will write a lot more about this.
I don't wont to disgrace others educated Archeologists.
Garrett Ace 250 ftw
Just so you are aware, archaeologists dont just go down to the licence shop and put a hole in the ground. There are serious regulations to allow an excavation to take place and even more licences for the use of GRP and Metal Detecting equipment to be used.
i know the point that your trying to make jakub25. And yes using metal detectors may mean that we find metallic artifacts such as coins etc, but the point we're trying to make is that for you to say yes this is an archaeological site (and not just some miss placed camping hook etc) you would need to dig it up and provide this evidence.
Even if you turn it into the museum, in some sence it would only be half a find because as archaeologists we look at contexts, soils etc, which provides alot of useful information and a better way of dating artifacts. when you dig this up you aren't recording these and so it is lost forever.
thats the point i think we're trying to make.
for example recently i was on a dig with UCD and our job was to excavate a charcoal-making platform and although we found metallic objects what we were interested in was the soil contexts etc as this provided the evidence we needed to say that yes this is what happened here.
am i making sence lol
Ok, but look at this there is more than 10.000 artefact all founded
on fields(agriculture), pastures by people who were using MD.
So many artefcts with no context and it is legal.
I will ask now.Where is Irish database?
Is this item nothing worth for archeologists
only because a old woman find this.
In GB not.
Illegal is also using a MD for finding gold nuggets.
What is my point.You see 1987 rules are to prevent destroing
archeological sites etc, but is this realy work?
People are using MD enyway.
How you can stop persons
who are using MD at Fields, Passtures?
Tighter controls on the users of metal detectors in Ireland.
Yes it is very simple solution.
It realy work in Poland, police looking in internet
for persons who are selling artefacts and they came to home.
Advertising of MD is legal but using not, only archeologists can use
(same situation what here is)
A lot of MD people something about 50.000.
A lot of websites. Very more than here in Ireland.
Now archeologists think nobady isnt coming to as with pots of gold
why because people hidding finds in homes (neighbour)
and weiting for legalization.
Maybe somebady already find a big treaure in Ireland.
So he will be judged, so who will came to you?
Or maybe Englih solution?
But then you will have a lot of items with no archeological context, etc.
Sorry for my english.
Its not that archaeologists aren't excited about things that people find with a MD, if you came into the museum tomorrow and said look i found a early medieval pin etc we would be very excited and it would be examined etc but half the information would be lost. because when we bag finds we need to know the exact area it was found for the records (so in the future we may excavate) and at what level it was found etc also the context can tell us more about the artifact than the object itself can, for example if we excavated the area and took contexts, soil examples etc we might discover that this pin was found in a man-made ditch next to a house etc which at the time people may have felt it was a form of protection to bury items or bones of ancestors next to the house.
we don't just look at cool items, we theorise how people lived and why they lived like that etc
I'm only a student of archaeology but for all my essays we talk only of how people lived and use artifacts as backup for this. context and soils etc is necessary for this.
when you dig items up like that women in the video you destroy the statigraphy, you may think oh it was only a small hole but there could have been a post hole there etc you never know and when people dig these items up we will never know
also the women could go out the next day and if there are no specific features to show where she found the item, like by a tree etc and your just looking in a bare field, your basically guessing where you found it.
Most of Ireland's good archaeological finds are actually in British museums or in peoples private collections due to a lack of legislation from previous years, and there is a serious lack of information about irelands past due to this (written sources such as the annals must be taken with a pinch of salt as many can be biased or over exsagerated)
thus we have this legislation to prevent artifacts being taken from their contexts so that we may properly excavate and gain much needed information. yes you could say we wouldn't have found it without the help of your MD but ultimatly if u dig it up and it has no context its like u never found it because you could forget where you found it whithin a field etc and it wouldn't hold up if we were to seek a license.
again someone correct me if im wrong i am only a student however great enphasis is put on context
as far as i am aware most MDers only metal detect the top 6inches or so
I know that you doing a lot of important work, all this for keeping more
information about leaving in the past.
Could you tell me is the soil contex still after this?
Cultivating of soil.
60cm of deep ploughing at top of soil.
Every year machines are getting better.
Here is also some informations.
I can use GPS systm and put it into map.
What kind of institution can help to prevent those situations.
What you think about all of this?
when you find an artefact you don't just mark where you found it on a GPS, you must take soil contexts, the soil above, the soil below, the consistency of the soil, etc in fact after i found my first artefact on an excavation it took nearly 40minutes to regester it in ideal conditions.
Also if MDing was mad legal, where you may map it, most will not and there will be a influx of treasure hunters, something we don't need again.
you missed that point in my last message.
most of irelands archaeology that has been dug up, has been disgarded, melted down or snatched up by the british museum, we have little and need to preserve what we do have for excavation.
harvestors have dug up irish archaeology before (especially in bogs) but upon doing this it undergoes an achaeological investigation.
it is unfortunate but we need them to harvest our food lol so we get on with it whereas MDing is not essential and can help preserve sites and its stratigraphy and contexts.
also the information you provided was from the UK DFD, which i believe is frouned upon by many archaeologists, and i think non government funded because of this
How it could happen that in 1997 english goverment accepted
friendly law.England country with very very rich history
(roman empire, colonial empire etc)
Now they have lots lots of artefacts with no contex
and some on the ebay.
Why they had do that?
Here most of artefact is under new houses.Do they have contex?
(I'm talking about artefacts what could be founded with using MD)
Was big bulding boom here in Ireland.
It was impossible to check all of allotments.
Constructions must go on quickly.
In fact how many archeologists use MD in Ireland? 10?
What is better to have artefact with a half of contex or to have
artefact under new house?
i've already stated to you that Britain has alot of artefacts, and other archaeological evidence, and Ireland has very few, so much so that we have to compare many sites to that in britain instead of ireland.
thus the ban and need for proper excavation.
Britain in a sense can afford to lose it. < i dislike saying that but in comparison to ireland they can.
also archaeologists don't use them alot because as i previously stated, they are'nt accurate enough and do not hold up when applying for a licence to excavate.
Another fine example of why metal detectors should be encouraged.
Yes I was just reading a similar article....
... this is a very interesting quote from the Head of Portable Antiquities and Treasure at the British Museum, and this is another reason why ploughed fields, public parks and beaches should be exempt from the act as the soil statigraphy is already destroyed.
The treasures were found surprisingly close to the surface: some at such a shallow depth that they appeared to have been struck by a plough, in an area about 20 yards (metres) long in a cultivated field.
"I think what happened was that the plough just nicked the top of the deposit," said Roger Bland, the Head of Portable Antiquities and Treasure at the British Museum.
"I think if it had come back again the next year we would have seen quite a bit of damage."