Focus on Metal Detecting: Archaeology and Artefact Hunting

A simple question about their "partners", and a couple of British archaeologists lose their cool.... I was musing here yesterday about a brief exchange of comments on Twitter which I had not intended to return to, but I find out this morning that the conversation went on, and took a pretty astounding turn.

About eight yesterday evening one Mark Clifford ‏@MarkClifford86 [Project Officer at  Avoncroft Museum]  comments on te Twitter thread:  "to compare a metal detecting swoop on a site at night without permission to a professional excavation is laughable". What is laughable is I have no idea what the bloke is on about. It certainly is not me that is comparing "metal detecting" of any kind to an archaeological investigation. I've no idea what point he's making there and in relation to what, perhaps, if he's reading this he'd like to clarify in a comment.

Writing about the same time, Jack Hanson ‏@JackH235 14 h describes something as: "Shameful post - @PortantIssues you turn a clear and simple misreading of question into attack on professional integrity". I have to assume ("post") that it's the blog text he's addressing here. He suggests that there has been a misunderstanding and Mr Hedge misread one or other of my earlier tweeted questions, but I'm not sure which of the three attempts at clarification he had in mind. But, where for goodness' sake is there an "attack on professional integrity"? He goes on "Slamming @robhedge as jobsworth and clearly deliberate misspelling of name is petty, immature and unprofessional". It is indeed unprofessional of me that I did not notice that the colleague's name was "Hedge" and not "Hedges" as I now find that I inadvertently had written three times in my previous post - for which I apologise (and have now corrected the typo). It was not deliberate, it was a slip of the pen as it was the surname of my old boss in archaeology back in Essex. I admit that I should have checked what I wrote more carefully - but methinks Mr Hanson is overreacting a bit...

That aside, what I actually said was that British archaeologists (plural) tend not to want to discuss artefact hunters in public. This is because they work for councils, heritage bodies etc in Britain which all  have a policy of working with and not against artefact hunters. I've had so many private emails from UK archaeologists going back a decade and a half, one after the other saying that they support what I was saying in this or that forum (mostly they are from Britarch days), but they work for XYZ and if they added their voice to the discussion, it might cause trouble at work. Now, I do not know about Mr Hanson, but that is what I call a "jobsworth".*

Mr Hanson further urges me to  "Calm your ego" because all this is about is "from simple frustration of night-looting of a community excavation of which @robhedge values". I wonder whether he thinks I value the archaeological record any less than Mr Hedge.  I am certainly doing my best to draw attention to and provoke debate on the threats to it from policies on artefact hunting and the antiquities trade (with little help from many of my British colleagues). That's what this blog is all about, in case you'd not noticed. 

We seem to have got right off the original topic. I was trying to make a wider point on the basis of another statement in which archaeologist Mr Hedge was distancing himself from criticising artefact hunting in general, and it was this I was trying to talk about. There seems to me to be in British archaeology in general, not just Worcestershire, some exceedingly woolly thinking about artefact hunting and collecting. I was trying, ultimately unsuccessfully, to use the social media comment on it to explore that a bit. 

Mr Hedge himself admits he was a "bit taken aback" by my comments and once again goes on about his site's fence. That was not the point, the point was his distancing himself from criticism of artefact hunting - nothing whatsoever to do with fences. He says "I realise this is an emotive issue for many but personal attacks and jumping to conclusions aren't helpful". 

In reply to the latter point first, think when one asks a question, and gets an answer which seems to relate to something you'd not actually asked about (the comments on the PAS, detectors are tools etc), it's not me that was "jumping to conclusions". If the other party goes off on a tangent and discusses a side issue rather than addressing the point made, it rather invites one to speculate why that might be (let us note that this inability to focus on the core issues is endemic in the so-called "metal detector debate").

Secondly, I really see nothing there that anyone with skin of a normal thickness would class as a "personal attack", maybe Mr Hedge would like to clarify where he feels actually attacked by somebody trying to ascertain his opinion on the archaeological effects of artefact hunting.

Thirdly, I also really do not see why it should be any more an "emotive" topic for archaeologists to discuss the archaeological effects of artefact hunting among themselves any more than the archaeological effects of spending cuts, the destruction of the waterlogged archaeological record in wetlands through drainage/land improvement schemes, or policies towards plough destruction. There is surely no difference.  

Finally (?) yesterday evening  Rob Hedge ‏@robhedge assures his readers:  

On issues raised by @portantissues post, I'm happy to address them via email if he can refrain from calling me 'witless' or a 'jobsworth'.

NOWHERE in the blog article ("post") was Mr Hedge referred to as "witless"**  nor is he himself called a "jobsworth". However, in order to enable him to, if he wishes, clarify his position on artefact hunting (not fences), I've deleted that adjective [referring there to British archaeologists generally who do not like talking about this] from my previous post. Now there is nothing to stop him telling us exactly what he, as an archaeologist, feels about artefact hunting removing items from archaeological sites and assemblages. 

But - in relation to the comments I made, and to which he takes such great exception and obviously takes personally, why does he indicate he prefers to answer offline in a private email (where, obviously,  nobody else can see what he writes)?  The comments I made were made here on my blog. This blog has a perfectly accessible comments section (look down the bottom of this text) which a number of people have used to tell me that I am wrong, and why and some to express support, or ask further questions. I really do not see why Mr Hedge feels unable to use it to address the "issues raised by @portantissues post". Let's keep any discussion in one place, and public. In any case I do not have his email address.

 

* I do not know if the "Historic Landscape Office at Worcs Archive and Archaeology Service" is free to say whatever he likes about local government landscape  policy in his area, he writes in his Twitter header  "All views are my own" which suggests he's willing to speak out about whatever's bothering him about this or that planned or ongoing council sponsored development. If so, good for him. Not everybody in British archaeology/heritage management makes so bold with their opinions on what their present and potential future employers and paymasters are up to.... [I'm in a privileged position here, in general, I do not have to worry about not upsetting HBMC, the BM or any of the others involved as they do not influence those who employ me over here].


**The only time this word was ever used on this blog, the search engine reveals, was in October 2010 to refer to certain North American coin collectors attacking allegedly "ignorant archaeologists". Mr Hedge can check that out for himself. 

Vignette: Indy gets angry at simple question ('How Archaeology Works')