Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Metal Detecting Debate. Keep all your MD questions and querys here!
-
04-09-2009 11:07pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
:) 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
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 0 -
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:)
as far as i am aware most MDers only metal detect the top 6inches or so0 -
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
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4jWn-yhdSM&feature=related
60cm of deep ploughing at top of soil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGkOjqnWICc
Every year machines are getting better.
Here is also some informations.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the context of metal detecting, the ‘archaeological pool’ is the body of small man-made items in the ground, which have been lost, discarded or buried. Some of them have the potential to add to our knowledge of the past, but while they remain undiscovered they contribute nothing. It is only when they are recovered, whether by metal detectorists, archaeologists or members of the general public, that they provide any information at all. However, the great majority of items in this pool will only ever be discovered as a result of metal detectorists pursuing their hobby. Furthermore, while they remain in the ground they are exposed to a very severe risk of destruction. The emotive phrase, ‘depleting the archaeological pool’, is therefore entirely misleading, because it implies a net loss to our knowledge, as opposed to a net gain. Far from taking anything away, detectorists are adding to our knowledge by discovering and recording material that otherwise would have been lost forever. In fact, the reality of the situation is far better expressed, if the negative and propagandist, ‘depleting the archaeological pool’, is replaced with the more meaningful, ‘rescuing our material heritage’.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The vast majority of metallic objects that remain in the ground are condemned to certain destruction as a result of the intensive agricultural practices and land development that are associated with modern living. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Agrochemicals, for example, will completely destroy a base-metal object within a few years of being in the ground. Many ancient coins and artefacts will have survived in good condition in the soil for nearly two millennia, only to be completely destroyed in the last fifty years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Chemicals, however, are not the only threat faced by objects in the ground. The mechanisation of almost every aspect of agriculture makes long-term survival of any object within ploughsoil virtually impossible. Pre-historic stone implements and metallic objects are equally vulnerable. Even the smallest and lightest of items are cut to pieces, and any information they might have yielded is lost forever.[/FONT]It has no context its like u never found it because you could forget where you found it whithin a field etc
I can use GPS systm and put it into map.Archaeologists are bound to produce a report for planning purposes where construction will take place in a archaeloly sensitive area, in most cases this is just a paper exercise.
e.g. 18mths ago in the centre of Dublin on a one arce site close to Chrischurch an Archaeologists was required to produce a report, this entailed 2 No. 5M slit trenches been dug by the builder. The Archaeologists spent the morning in the two holes and determined the site was good to go.
Throughout the course of constructing the basement / piles, alot of pottery and some coins where un-earthed by workers, if the site was metal detected prior to works I'm sure a lot more could have been found.
What kind of institution can help to prevent those situations.
What you think about all of this?0 -
-
-
-
Another fine example of why metal detectors should be encouraged.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/8272058.stmBBC wrote:The UK's largest haul of Anglo-Saxon gold has been discovered buried beneath a field in Staffordshire.
Experts said the collection of 1,500 pieces, which may date back to the 7th Century, was unparalleled in size.
Dr Kevin Leahy, who has been cataloguing the find for the Portable Antiquities Scheme, said archaeologists had been "awestruck" by its quality.
Terry Herbert, who found it on farmland using a metal detector, said it "was what metal detectorists dream of".
It may take more than a year for the gold, which is expected to be classed by a coroner as treasure later, to be valued.
The collection contains about 5kg of gold and 2.5kg of silver, making it far bigger than the Sutton Hoo discovery in 1939 when 1.5kg of Anglo-Saxon gold was found near Woodbridge in Suffolk.
Leslie Webster, former keeper at the British Museum's Department of Prehistory and Europe, said: "This is going to alter our perceptions of Anglo-Saxon England as radically, if not more so, as the Sutton Hoo discoveries.
"(It is) absolutely the equivalent of finding a new Lindisfarne Gospels or Book of Kells."
'Absolutely phenomenal'
Mr Herbert, 55, of Burntwood in Staffordshire, who has been metal detecting for 18 years, came across the hoard as he searched land belonging to a farmer friend. The exact location has not been disclosed.
"I have this phrase that I say sometimes; 'spirits of yesteryear take me where the coins appear', but on that day I changed coins to gold," he said.
"I don't know why I said it that day but I think somebody was listening and directed me to it.
"This is what metal detectorists dream of, finding stuff like this. But the vast amount there is is just unbelievable."
Duncan Slarke, finds liaison officer for Staffordshire, was the first professional to see the hoard which contains warfare paraphernalia, including sword pommel caps and hilt plates inlaid with precious stones.
He said he was "virtually speechless" when he saw the items.
"Nothing could have prepared me for that," he said.
"I saw boxes full of gold, items exhibiting the very finest Anglo-Saxon workmanship.
"This is absolutely phenomenal.
"It is a hugely important find - the most important one that I have dealt with, but this has got to rank as one of the biggest in the country."
'Truly remarkable'
The collection is currently being kept in secure storage at Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery but a selection of the items are to be displayed at the museum from Friday until 13 October.
A Treasure Valuation Committee made up of independent experts will then value the find.
Dr Kevin Leahy, who has been cataloguing the find for the Portable Antiquities Scheme, said it was "a truly remarkable collection".
"All the archaeologists who've worked with it have been awestruck," he added.
"It's been actually quite scary working on this material to be in the presence of greatness."
He said the most striking feature of the find was that it was almost totally weapon fittings with no feminine objects such as dress fittings, brooches or pendants.
"Swords and sword fittings were very important in the Anglo-Saxon period," Dr Leahy added.
"The Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf describes after a battle a sword being stripped of its hilt fittings.
"It looks like a collection of trophies, but it is impossible to say if the hoard was the spoils from a single battle or a long and highly successful military career.
"We also cannot say who the original, or the final, owners were, who took it from them, why they buried it or when.
"It will be debated for decades."
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Hello everybody,
first of all sorry for my bad english. I read a lot of interesting post and article and of course the Act. But I never found answer for my question.
Can I use a metal detector on the beach or riverside?
/not on archaeological sites and fields/
I don't want to search for archaeological artefacts!!! I know unfortunately in Ireland it's illegal and I don't want trouble.
I spoken with a gardai and he told to me no problem to use an md on the beach. But I would like a confirmation because I don't want to go to search as a man who do illegal things. I would not be able to enjoy it.
I think that everybody knows what I talk about.
In my country I was a serious detectorist and I wouldn't like to finish the MD. I miss the detecting in the fresh air!!
In my country I was in good friendship some museum's directors and a lots of history lover people.
Anyway this is a beautiful hobby and this is the truth.;)0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
AudreyHepburn wrote: »The problem with finds produced from Metal Detecting is that when they are handed into the museum or to archaeologists you have no idea of the context they were found in. In some cases you might be able to adequatly date the find or it may have become damaged because it wasn't properly removed and conserved. Chances the place of discovery would not have been properly recorded either.
And all that is of course assumung that person actually hands over the find or reports to the relevant body as is legally required.
And before anyone asks, yes I am an archaeologist!
I agree 100% with this and I have on numerous occasions tried to explain this within the thread. As an archaeology student and someone who has been on different excavations, i find it extremely annoying when an artefact is taken from its site through this manner, but believe me its not worth arguing
. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement