Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,804
- 10,336
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
I invite T'net readers to read the comments section of archaeologist blogs, 2 links above. This fellow Paul is what we md'rs call a "purist archaeologist". He prefers to call it "conservation conscious". And he was fair enough to allow me to post to his blog.
After many back & forth posts, I tried to capsulize his stance as:
"Hobbyist metal detecting, for old items in legal places, done with no archaeological rigor, is damaging and harmful".
Essentially: The only type metal detecting he would approve of, is if we md'rs basically BECAME archaeologists. (dig with brushes, write volumes on each nail, turn all old stuff over to museums, etc...). This is understandable if we were talking land where there is some sort of law requires that (ARPA for sensitive monuments, etc...). But to him, it's EVERYWHERE. Even on private land, and forms of public land where no laws or rules forbid.
I told him there's many archaeologists who do not have problems with our type hobbyists. As long as they stay out of the archaeologists digs, and out of off-limits sites. Paul has a dim view of any archaeologist who is not "conservative conscious".
After getting to the root of his stance (in bold above), you can see I repeatedly asked him to confirm. ( Although it was beyond dispute, as I was pulling this direct from him). I just wanted to get a "yes that is my stance". So that we could move on with a conversation ON JUST THAT. Ie.: "no rabbit trails" for either side. Because admittedly, when an archaeologist comes to read a metal detecting forum, sure: He will find things that are objectionable. There is "locker room talk" here about archaeologists . Ie.: jokes about ARPA, and so forth. I didn't *****-foot around that, yes, there can be wrong forms of th'ing / md'ing, and snarky talk by md'rs.
So to GET BEYOND ALL THAT (ie.: no red herrings) I wanted to see if the very core of his stance could be cross-examined. And as you can see: A) he refused to admit this capsulized his stance, and B) it devolved into name calling on his part (how sweet, eh ?)
WHICH IS FINE BY ME. Because therefore :
A) It is very TELLING that here was an md'r (about the most brazen as they come mind you) who was willing to intellectually discuss the issue. Assuming we could stay on track with a single statement for review. Yet he didn't care to do that. Ok, ask yourself: Who was the open minded person here ? Who attempted to open dialogue ? Yet who says "no" to cross-examination of his stance ? Hmmm.
B) It was also very TELLING to see him name calling. When , as you can see, I tried my durndest to be polite, give him his due, acknowledged historical sins on the part of treasure hunters , etc... So ask yourself: Who was courteous and a gentleman ?
Hence we shall let all those facts speak LOUDLY for themselves. Paul: If you're reading this: Thanx for the fascinating look into the conservative conscious archaeological view.
After many back & forth posts, I tried to capsulize his stance as:
"Hobbyist metal detecting, for old items in legal places, done with no archaeological rigor, is damaging and harmful".
Essentially: The only type metal detecting he would approve of, is if we md'rs basically BECAME archaeologists. (dig with brushes, write volumes on each nail, turn all old stuff over to museums, etc...). This is understandable if we were talking land where there is some sort of law requires that (ARPA for sensitive monuments, etc...). But to him, it's EVERYWHERE. Even on private land, and forms of public land where no laws or rules forbid.
I told him there's many archaeologists who do not have problems with our type hobbyists. As long as they stay out of the archaeologists digs, and out of off-limits sites. Paul has a dim view of any archaeologist who is not "conservative conscious".
After getting to the root of his stance (in bold above), you can see I repeatedly asked him to confirm. ( Although it was beyond dispute, as I was pulling this direct from him). I just wanted to get a "yes that is my stance". So that we could move on with a conversation ON JUST THAT. Ie.: "no rabbit trails" for either side. Because admittedly, when an archaeologist comes to read a metal detecting forum, sure: He will find things that are objectionable. There is "locker room talk" here about archaeologists . Ie.: jokes about ARPA, and so forth. I didn't *****-foot around that, yes, there can be wrong forms of th'ing / md'ing, and snarky talk by md'rs.
So to GET BEYOND ALL THAT (ie.: no red herrings) I wanted to see if the very core of his stance could be cross-examined. And as you can see: A) he refused to admit this capsulized his stance, and B) it devolved into name calling on his part (how sweet, eh ?)
WHICH IS FINE BY ME. Because therefore :
A) It is very TELLING that here was an md'r (about the most brazen as they come mind you) who was willing to intellectually discuss the issue. Assuming we could stay on track with a single statement for review. Yet he didn't care to do that. Ok, ask yourself: Who was the open minded person here ? Who attempted to open dialogue ? Yet who says "no" to cross-examination of his stance ? Hmmm.
B) It was also very TELLING to see him name calling. When , as you can see, I tried my durndest to be polite, give him his due, acknowledged historical sins on the part of treasure hunters , etc... So ask yourself: Who was courteous and a gentleman ?
Hence we shall let all those facts speak LOUDLY for themselves. Paul: If you're reading this: Thanx for the fascinating look into the conservative conscious archaeological view.
Last edited:
We should start a "club" of md'rs who were fortunate enough to be on the "Paul Barford's example list of horrible & vilified md'r ". It will be a badge of honor to be mentioned by him, eh ? 
