Focus on UK Metal Detecting: "Failure to Check Facts", The Bosworth Boar

Many UK Metal detectorists behave like utter jerks. Instead of facing the many issues that surround current policies on artefact hunting, all they seem able to do is launch personal attacks on those who address them and indulge in name calling rather than address actual facts. Thus it is that anti-archaeological detectorist "Bubba" John Howland  (August 30, 2013) blogging away blithely [in reference it would seem to this] tauntingly informs his readers without any regard to the actual facts of the matter:

"Barford can’t get his facts right!

1. The Bosworth Boar WAS NOT Item #5 on the Television program, Britain’s Secret Treasures
2. Item #5 in that superb program WAS the Chiddingly, Sussex ‘boar’
3. It was found by a member of the public.

[...] it’s anyone’s guess why Paul Barford can’t or won’t get his facts straight.  On this form, God knows what credence anyone can now place on anything he writes".

Really? Mr Howland is absolutely right not to simply take my word for anything, just as I'd urge everyone not take his. I'd prefer my readers to look for themselves, make their own minds up. This is why I'd like them trawling metal detecting forums and blogs, to see what they reveal about what metal detectorists actually do and say among themselves.

Well who is speaking the truth here? Barford, or the metal detectorist? Have a look at the actual "Britain's Got Treasure" programme, episode six, on You Tube, all of it if you can stomach it, or just this bit. Here it is:

 BST Ep. 6: Posted on You Tube by Lily Elizabeta 4th Feb 2013

It can be seen that Mr Howland is telling fibs in order to attempt to discredit me and counting on none of his readers bothering to check for themselves. It's clear to the rest of us that it was the Bosworth Boar which was discussed in this episode of "Britain's Secret Treasures" as "object number five" (and you can see that the programme skips over the fact that it was found as part of the archaeological project searching for the battlefield).  The PAS record LEIC-A6C834 for this object states quite unequivocally "This badge appeared in the ITV1 Series 'Britain's Secret Treasures' on 22 July 2012". The object discussed in the programme is quite clearly not the "Chiddingly" badge.

Mr Howland indulges in some name calling ("truth bender" and "boy blunder") because I do not accept that what we saw in the programme was not the Boar that he falsely claims it was. I ask those who took the trouble to check the link to decide for themselves who is bending the truth here. Which side is it that is trying to present and analyse the facts, and which side is trying to detract attention from the issues by inflammatory (and time-wasting) personal attacks just as Mr Howland is engaging in here?

But it seems its not just the metal detecting members of the unholy "partnership" which gets things wrong. According to Mr Howland (who does not supply a link, but he seems to be referring to the caption here to a picture of the Chiddingly Boar badge):* 

"the boar shown on the PAS website is not the same one as that found by Dr. Foard’s team (theirs came from the battlefield site!)  The PAS boar was found at Chiddingly,  Sussex, some 166 miles south of where the Battle of Bosworth took place!  The PAS describe ‘their boar’ thus:  ‘Boar Badge of Richard III from Chiddingly, Sussex. Featured at number 5 on Britain’s Secret Treasures’..,."

It is also on their Flickr stream also alleged to be the BST boar number five.  This false fact then misleads a member of the public rather badly, causing her to publish information in the "social media" placing the Battle of Bosworth in Sussex !

"Joanne • 34 weeks ago The Chiddingly Boar, medieval silver-gilt livery badge of Richard III, helped researchers pinpoint the location of the battle of Bosworth when is was found in east Sussex in 1999"

All I can say in reply to Howland's baseless allegations is that it is a fact that instead of the object he claims is shown and discussed, a moment's checking (which the metal detectorist trouble-maker could not be bothered to do) shows that on the actual programme a different boar is shown, and linked to a different site. So metal detectorist Howland is wrong. It also emerges from this that the Portable Antiquities Scheme apparently do not know if they are coming or going and have produced information which is misleading its partners and members of the public that pay for it and have a right to expect reliable factual information for their money. Using Mr Howland's arguments, perhaps we should be wary of believing anything the PAS say about anything? 

Pathetic.

* The Chiddingly boar, found by Phil Weeden in 1999 seems not to be in the PAS database (at least there is no mention of it being there on the BM website, in 1999 the PAS did not cover Sussex - nota bene, though obviously I'd like to, I cannot actually check this tonight as the clunky old PAS database seems to be "down" again [still down Saturday]).

Vignette: Metal detectorist tries to score a point. Fails.