Collectors Arguing from Anonymous Pseudo-Identities

Heritage Action, like this blog, have an open policy on commenting. We are here to encourage the stakeholder-public to take a good look at what is happening to the (their) archaeological heritage at the hands of unscrupulous collectors and dealers and their archaeological "partners". Part of this should be allowing the other side to have its say. That the latter are unwilling or incapable is part of the picture. What they do instead of properly engaging is to attempt to block discussion (for example actively excluding us from seeing what's happening on many of their forums) coupled with consistent attempts to attack and disrupt. One of the methods UK metal detectorists have adopted with alacrity is to take advantage of the anonymity of the Internet to make use of 'sock puppet' pseudo-identities to spread misinformation and confusion. The nuisance has reached plague proportions over on Heritage Journal and Heritage Action have today issued a statement:

Yet again we have received a large number of comments via anonymous proxies (Boothy et al). Some of these have seemed genuine but most have been antagonistic or deliberately disruptive. To ensure genuine debate we will still be deleting all comments which have come via anonymous proxies when we detect them. We have also had postings that seem to be concerted attempts to represent us as saying things we haven’t: someone left a comment likening detectors to guns and it has been quoted suspiciously fast on a US detecting site as something said by us. A pitch for the attention of the none too bright Cold Dead Hand lobby no doubt! If you are a genuine poster who uses anonymous proxies for legitimate reasons please email us at [...] and we will make a special case for you.

Some of these texts posted to HA as comments for public view have been passed on to me. One group of comments in particular is interesting. Close examination of the wording suggests to me that although they purport to be from a metal detectorist, they are not. Far from it. They look very much like an attempt by someone the 'other side of the fence' to bring certain detecting practices and attitudes into disrepute. HA did not publish them. I tracked down the UK location from which one of them was apparently sent (the rest went through a German proxy server) and its a surprising location. Is it too much of a fantasy to see this as the work of a FLO fed up with dealing with archaeology-gobbling oiks and who might anyway be leaving the job soon? I wonder.

Heritage Action and myself would be only too glad to hear from dissident FLOs (or ex-FLOs) willing to "tell it like it is". Mind you, we'd also welcome comments from the artefact-hunting-compliant ones too telling is how utterly wrong we are and why. At least those ones can write under their real names. They will not of course. They are all busy pretending that we - and the issues we raise - do not exist.

Meanwhile readers can seek the true voice of UK metal detecting on their forums. Join one or two and take a good look. 

Vignette: The imagined face of "Candice Jarman", in reality a balding fat guy on a council estate in the south of England. Another of those canting sock puppets which UK metal detectorists want to use to do the talking for them. What have they got to hide?