Not the Sharpest knife in the drawer...

In my experience, most metal detectorists think in stereotypes, which they use to create a 'tribal' self-identity find it hard to break out of. There is a really good example on Will Anderson's blog (The Assemblage: political archaeology) where in a nicely-written post ('the Crosby Garrett Conspiracy") he criticises London auction house Christie's for their treatment of a recently "surfaced" artefact and its subsequent sale to a secretive but very wealthy private collector for two million quid, putting it out of the reach of British public collections where it can be seen, studied and admired by the wider public.


How does the artefact hunter David Emory react to that?

"You elitist crap heads..."

followed by the usual ill-informed nonsenses. So, Christie's sales are not in any way elitist? The object being displayed to the press by the Countess of Carnarvon's younger sister, that's not elitist? Collectors spending obscene sums of money (six times the estimate) to satisfy some private compulsion to own and shut away something which should have been a national treasure are not in any way elitist?If you read what Anderson actually wrote, the logic of Mr Emory's response is difficult to perceive. I agree with Anderson:

"the people of Cumbria, Britain, the world, have had something nicked from them".

Those metal detectorists who using criticism of the flow of events here as a springboard to argue that we need an "archaeology for the people" are entirely missing the lesson that is to be learnt from the Crosby Garrett fiasco.

Vignette: 8 King Street, St James', London (from the Christie's website)