How to Reach Enlightenement: Join a Metal Detecting Forum or Two

Over on the Day of Archaeology webpage, run by Portable Antiquities Scheme's Dan Pett in London, in the comments to Scott Clark's text on making US "metal detecting" a closer ally of archaeology, Dick Stout in response to Serra Head asks: “Where does this understanding [of what relic hunters do] start and who initiates it? The option of course is to continue status quo, and that really accomplishes nothing IMO”. My response:

I agree, this status quo cannot and should not prevail. Back in the old days getting such understanding would mean going along to metal detecting club meetings, which is what some archaeologists in the UK still do. Today the internet and the existence of a plethora of discussion forums, blogs and websites gives the opportunity to hear directly from those involved just what artefact hunters do, think and say.

There is surely no better way to gain an understanding of who artefact hunters are, what they aim to get out of their collecting, their attitudes to conservation, how serious they are as a whole about the declarations they make (and others make on their behalf), degree of adherence to and understanding of agreed codes of practice, what they consider responsible behaviour, what they do with the objects they find, what they understand of the notions of context and conservation, and so on

Logging on to their candid discussions of these and other topics online is therefore a fundamental source of information on which the reader can gain some understanding of what is going on and what the problems are. Mr Stout’s own blog http://stoutstandards.wordpress.com/ , for example, together with his co-author UK detectorist John Howland, set new standards in the public debate. Please visit it and have a look around at the timbre of debate there.

I would say resources like this (and there are many more like this) give a truer picture of what actually goes on in the broader detecting community that the declarative statements of the few that see the need to work together towards a conservation-based approach such as Scott Clark.

UPDATE August 4, 2013
Scott Clark replies that he is unconvinced that "the forum chatter or flame wars [are] representative of detectorists’ attitudes in the USA".

I know that I feel awkward when the form threads or blog posts take on a truck-stop timbre, or where members spew forth evidence they haven’t a clue what archaeology is about (nor do they want to learn, damn it.) And I’m not alone. Along the way I’ve met many others with these sensibilities. We just don’t fit in very well I guess – and this prevents me from participating in forums, clubs and rallies. I’d prefer working with a university on a survey or exploring the woods alone with my notebook, camera and detector – looking forward to sharing and publishing my finds as much as the discovery itself.

Here, I'd point out that what we hear here is basically that Mr Scott is doing archaeology, systematic work carried out with sensitivity - recording the important details as you go, and then publishing the results. This is what the 'truck stop' artefact hunters are not doing. THEY cannot see the difference, and they do not see any difference between their hoiking artefacts out just to "have" them, and those who are mitigating their impact on a finite and fragile resource by observing, recording and disseminating information (not just on the finds but their context of discovery). That is the difference between the metal detecting which is acceptable and that which, surely, no longer is. This is the sort of 'best practice' the PAS was set up in the UK a decade and a half ago to instil. Scott Clark makes a good point when he says:

A professionals only approach to every historic site is impractical and wasteful

The point is though how to protect the fragile and finite resource from exploitation by those who are not applying a "professional" approach to its dismantling? I do not think anyone is saying amateurs should keep away from archaeology, but that is the point, differentiating amateur archaeology from mere artefact-mining. Certainly there are ways in which "amateurs can contribute in an acceptable fashion" and certainly we can discuss ways of expanding that, a condition of this however surely must be that the participants should be agreed that the aim of their participation is to contribute to the same thing and in the same way as the archaeologists, and not carry on blithely doing something diametrically opposed to the discipline and at the detriment of the notion of sustainable management of the archaeological resource.

Next time I am in Tennessee, I'll gladly buy Scott Clark that pint (or two) and chat further about this. It is refreshing to find a relic hunter (especially from the US which has different archaeological problems than those we have in the UK and Europe) who actually understands where the other side is coming from. Thanks, Scott for that thoughtful contribution to the Day of Archaeology.