Dodgy British Archaeology Dodging the Big Questions

Metal detectorist James says of artefact hunting: "we are all trying to add a positive contribution to our heritage, though our methods are different". He feels that grassroots conservation group Heritage Action is:

"rather negative in their in their opinions and have a somewhat closed mind as to what the majority of people "outside" the archaeological community have to offer. This is a mistake we humans tend to make, we see some bad practise and then paint everyone in that area with the same brush. Instead of us being in conflict, why can we not discuss this issue that stands between us? We can only move forward with discussion and education and above all cooperation between us, shouldn't we all have the right to connect to our heritage?" 

Hmm. So artefact hunting is not at all exploitive? Is not the extent of the bad practice the issue here, if its 10% o0f the activity, it's a different question from it being 80% or more isn't it? THAT is the question Heritage Action are posing. That's not "negative", it is an important question that we should all be asking (actually it's a question to which we should long ago have received an answer from fifteen-million-quid-and-rising PAS).

And yes, why, indeed can we NOT discuss this and other issues like any normal question? Finally, I absolutely agree that we should all have the right to connect to our heritage, though I cannot agree to that being the case when it is at the expense of killing and gutting it.

I asked: Paul Barford | September 2, 2013 at 5:58 am 

and did you get around to discussing “this issue that stands between us” with the archaeologists and conservationists in any detail? Where, please?  Artefact hunting and collecting happen in many corners of the world, can you give an indication how this is adding “a positive contribution to our heritage” in Egypt, Syria, Peru, Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and NW Russia and everywhere else this is going on at the moment?  Thanks

James replies:

Personally, I don’t believe and have never said that irresponsible use and metal detecting theft here and in any other country is contributing to our heritage. In other articles I’ve written, I openly condemn this type of crime – for crime it is and it is wrong to colour true metal detectorist’s with this image.

So, it's legal innit? When artefact hunting takes place on a site in a forest in Russia its not contributing to culture in because the laws say it is wrong to damage sites in this way, but in a forest in Norfolk doing the same sort of damage is "contributing to culture" because its legal there? How so? Damage, surely, is damage. But is it always "responsible"? How do you define "responsible artefact hunting" in Egypt, or is artefact hunting only done responsibly in England? How would one actually define that these days?


As for the other points made, most metal detectorists do not find things like the Staffordshire hoard, and most of the finds they rip out of archaeological sites never end up in any museum, and a huge number do not even get seen by the PAS. How then are most metal detectorists therefore "contributing to culture"?

Condemning all people who metal detect as those who rob our heritage is like saying that if a criminal used a car as part of a crime, then all motorists are criminals. 

No, it's not, not unless 80% of the time when car drivers are out, they are driving around completely drunk, ignoring red lights and week after week knock over old ladies on pedestrian crossings. Then the 20% would have a hard time justify doing nothing and fighting those who say we need to clamp down on traffic offenders. And I would say that in such circumstances they would be utterly wrong to do so. Heritage Action suggest the problem with UK metal detecting is that bad (and I think they are right). Frankly I do not see the stereotypical justification connected with what Time Team does on TV, two wrongs never make a right. James says he "speaks for true and honest detectorist’s who love our history":

I cannot speak for the rest! 

But he is. He is pretending that the 20% is what we should be judging the hobby by, not the 80%.
Let there be no mistake, the "nighthawks" are not the only problem, it's the Grey detectorists who are. And do they "love history" any the less because they practice their hobby in a different way to James? I doubt they'd see it like that. James seems to want to set himself up as a member of some kind of an elite group which should receive some kind of special treatment, and that we should ignore the existence of the rest.

I do not think therefore that we are any nearer identifying  “this issue that stands between us”, are we?