Just a few days ago we were hearing from across the sea of not one, but two on-air 'debates' between archaeologists and relic hunters about working together. We hear that the hobby magazine wants to see the same thing. Several US detectorists are already engaged in deeper reflection on what that means> So on the face of it, the future looks a bit brighter. But then artefact coillecting always has been adept at creating facades, saying one thing and actually doing something else when they think nobody's watching. That is why I say that anyone interested in looting matters should register on as many collectors' forums as they can stomach. Three years ago Heritage Action examined the facade of respectability that UK metal detectorists were lounging behind, and postulated its own definitions of best practice aimed at drawing attention to how we can maximise public benefit from the activity (in other words, exactly what UK metal detectorists say they want to do/are doing). Another point that was being made is that despite all the declarations, no British artefact hunter actually has any intention whatsoever of actually putting their deeds where their mouths are and agreeing to anything like this. Neither has a single one of them actually tried to debate this issue. On seeing the US debate, Heritage Action drew attention two days ago to what they had earlier proposed. The reaction was telling.
A US metal detectorist going under the name of Joe Smith apparently reckons that proposals any kind of standards of best practice more than hoiking everything out and pocketing it, can be dismissed by calling the people advocating it names:
"On this side of the pond, we call them ass hats".Now am not familiar with this term, but I think we can assume it is not complimentary. The idea of mutual discussion of issues of standards and aims is simply beyond Mr Smith. There are a number of comments of that ilk in the same place, which happens to be the personal blog of one of the participants in the much-vaunted "Archie-tekkie shootout debate" just a dozen or so days earlier. Here's the man's reaction to the proposals of a UK heritage group. On the back of a discussion ("Are We About to Lose the Seas too?") of the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the protection of the underwater heritage (which, nota bene, he and his sidekicks seem only now to have discovered) he worries that artefact hunting will never have "a cohesive, united group powerful enough to stand up to this propaganda and overreach"> Where here is the desire to work with heritage professionals towards protection and sustainable management? Suddenly when he's not pretending to debate working together its all about "uniting in confrontation". Leopards and spots come to mind. The text was edited. Now it reads:
The implication that the majority of detectorists are unethical is clear (and I too want to throw up). Read it and take heed. It’s just one more piece in the subtle but unrelenting effort to shut us down.Hmm. If animal welfare activists submit proposals for ethical zoo-keeping, it means they want zoos to be closed down, or that they want zoos to give consideration to faults of the past and make improvements?
I do not follow this line of logic. On the one hand detectorists (and 'detecting icon' Mr Stout in particular) expresses a desire for relic hunting to maintain some kind of legitimacy in the public eye, precisely by stressing the (if only superficial) public benefits. Yet when ideas are actually put forward to increase the public benefits - a social contract in effect, they make him "want to throw up". Where is the logic in that?
There was a Relic Roundup podcast here where the American Digger folk were discussing "ethics". If it had stayed available (glad I did not waste time reviewing it here), you'd have seen that their ideas consist mainly of following the law (duh), filling in your holes and being fair to your fellow detectorists. Nothing much about public benefits.