PACHI BLOG BACK ONLINE, DESPITE UK METAL DETECTORISTS' THREATS

..
I was gratified by the number of people and institutions who wrote asking for invitations to read this blog while it was "author only" (that's what it should have said) and offered its author messages of support. Thanks very much to all those people. Concerned heritage organization Heritage Action (on whose forums aggressive and disruptive behaviour of metal detectorists and their supporters is no novelty either) helped out by hosting a text by me explaining why this blog was offline and pointing out in no uncertain terms why this sort of thing matters. I am grateful to them for this gesture of goodwill and support. Thanks also to Meg Lambert over in the US for recognising that problem with antisocial metal detectorists is no different from any of the other conflicts of interest in the 'scary' world of portable antiquities ruffianship.

I have now decided to re-open access to this blog to all interested (on both sides of the collecting 'fence'). The whole point of a public debate is that it should be public. If artefact hunters (so-called "metal detectorists") in the UK object to that, that's just their tough luck. There is absolutely nothing to stop them producing their own open-access blogs and websites, commenting on and debating points made, articulating their counterarguments and addressing the issues raised in texts like the ones I write here. That is something that to this day is wholly lacking from this milieu. In my view crude thuggish attempts simply to silence an ongoing debate about what is after all the common archaeological heritage by making threats and by the sort of pathetic 'anti-blogging' we have seen until now, is nothing but an immense and very public signal of the intellectual bankruptcy of the artefact hunting and collecting "cause".

To judge from the reaction on some metal detecting forums (like the Detecting Wales discussion list which you can see without registering to get access to closed access areas) artefact hunters in the UK were delighted that "the Barford Slayer" (sic) among them had managed to - as he put it - "put an end to Paul Barford and his anti detecting blogs" by resorting to enlisting local low-life to threaten his family. There has been almost universal approval in the milieu of the actions of the person concerned and by extension the crude 'methods' applied. I think many "metal detectorists " in the UK are only too aware of the "Portable Antiquities Scam" currently being perpetrated on British public opinion. That is, the huge holes in the arguments put forward by the supporters of the hobby of so-called "metal detecting" and the degree to which the flimsy façade of "responsibility" and alleged "benefits" for archaeology is based on wholly questionable premises as the foundation. Tragically for the archaeological record of Britain, the number of people actually questioning these premises is still relatively small. This is partly as a result of the sort of aggression and unpleasantness (including threats) that tends to be directed at their authors (even on 'academic' discussion lists such as the JISC-run Britarch discussion list of the Council for British Archaeology, and before this forced its closure, the Portable Antiquities Scheme's own public-access forum).

This has to change and there has to be more transparency about what these people are doing to the archaeological heritage in which not only archaeologists and collectors are the only stakeholders, but - primarily - the whole of society (and internationally). The conservation policies of English Heritage on sustainable management of the historic environment (download here) state clearly that the issues concerning conservation of the cultural heritage should be a matter of open debate and consultation. This is quite patently not happening in the case of portable antiquities issues. This may be very comfortable for the artefact hunter and procurer, it may be comfortable for the dealers and buyers, but all the time this is going on, the evidence we have indicates that the long-term survival and integrity of the archaeological record which we aim to protect is being severely compromised.

Since the metal detectorists of the United Kingdom with few exceptions failed to speak out against the attempt to frighten the author into silence - giving the impression at least that they were solidly behind it - this seems a good time to summarise some of the problems the milieu does not want talked about. I intend to make the next fortnight on this blog - "Scrutiny of English Metal Detecting Fortnight" with a series of posts summarising the chief problems with current English policy on the hunting and collecting of freshly dugup artefacts from archaeological sites and lifted out of the archaeological record.

In response to the sense of entitlement expressed in the all-too-public jubilation of 1000+ Welsh "detectorists" over on their forum at the news that a critic had been crudely silenced, and in the light of current ongoing political events over in Wales, I have started a separate blog:

'Na i PAS ar gyfer Cymru: No to a Welsh PAS'

This looks more carefully at what the Welsh artefact hunters in particular have to hide. In it I put forward the argument that the existence of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, an organization which is a "partner" to these artefact hunters, is to a great degree sheltering some extremely disturbing features from deserved public scrutiny. The archaeological record belongs to us all and not a minority of individuals with metal detectors who claim absolute entitlement to take what they want from it and do what they want ("it's legal innit?"). I present a number of cogent arguments for wider debate concerning the total scrapping of the Welsh PAS in order to bring out into the open the issue of what should be done about the damage caused to the archaeological record by "metal detectorists". Maybe English lawmakers will eventually draw a more logical conclusion about the need to do something about the 'hidden hobby' than to simply pat a few of the collectors on the head and throw millions of pounds at a Scheme-facade in a pretence that the problem is in some way dealt with. It is not.

In case anyone is wondering, though I did from other archaeological bodies in the UK , it was notable - though not unexpected - that I did not get a single message of support from the fifty or so fellow archaeologists working in "Britain's largest archaeological (sic) outreach" organization whose job it actually is to be conducting public outreach on the portable antiquity issues which I cover in this blog. Perhaps, like their "partners" the so-called "metal detectorists", Bloomsbury was only too happy at the apparent closing down of another venue of open public debate about portable antiquities and heritage issues.

UPDATE 11th October 2011: It seems "Detecting Wales" have decided they do have something to hide after all: access to the page about the Welsh detectorists' reaction to "Steve the Barford Slayer's" discussion-stifling "achievements" now seems to have been deleted or blocked. It must be so awkward being part of a hobby where you can't allow outsiders to actually see what members write because it would show that the hobby is not at all what your propagandists would like people to believe about it. More transparency and honesty with the general public please.
Vignette: The 'Guennol' Lioness and I have some loose ends to tie up.