Focus on UK Metal Detectorists: Checking the Facts and Being Part of the "Cool Gang"

My comments on John Winter's post informing other detectorists what "Old Coppernose" and the word "debased" mean seems to have hit a raw nerve, thus we see first Mr Winter's own rather basically-biological reaction and then in the comments to it a full range of unthinking happy slapping insults from his mates. Most of it is the usual lowbrow stuff you expect from this crowd. One comment caught my eye though as quite symptomatic of the whole situation. Look at what "Des" (10 September 2013 at 8:58 pm) writes [after calling me a "buffoon" for writing a blog about conservation and some other insulting stuff reflecting the limits of the tekkie imagination]: 

Having read some previous material about him, I wouldn’t be surprised if his purported qualifications were purchased mail order/online from various “universities” around the world. 

Spot that? He's perfectly prepared to make his judgement on something based on what the rest of his fellows write ABOUT it. There is no idea here of looking himself at the issue and making up his own mind from personal enquiry, and maybe even coming to a different conclusion from his fellows. That puts his own comment about the effects of being, or not being, "popular" and "part of the cool gang" in quite a different context. "Des" clearly represents himself over on the Winter Blog as part of the metal detecting "cool gang" who have taken it upon themselves to unthinkingly and unflinchingly attack and denigrate anyone who expresses any reservations about current UK policies on artefact hunting, without any reference at all to what they actually say.

We see the same process over on a metal detecting forum near you, where Dr Christos Tsirogiannis is slagged off by the Taff-tekkie "cool gang" ("Pick on the detectorists" September 05, 2013 ) for expressing his views on artefact hunting. These I know he has reached as a result of his own experiences with looters and looting (and I imagine that if the Taffs knew a little of the facts about the latter, they might not be so free with their disrespect and insults - its just nobody wrote about it for them and finding out for themselves is just a little too much effort for them). It is worth looking where that DW thread goes, harking back to the glory-days of tekkie militance twenty years ago, when the NCMD kicked against the Treasure Act and detectorists scored some points by making a hellish nuisance of themselves - the effects of which are still felt today. This is what made the "Cool Gang" cool then, and it seems the milieu has not moved on an inch from that even today. This is the background to the attempts by various individuals to impress the militant and non-cooperative "Cool Gang" by their progressively crass antics.

There is a very noticeable tendency for these people to seek validation of their views, not in facts (especially if coming from a source which they feel may contest their own views), but  in the opinion of others who agree with, and reinforce, their own opinions. Thinking outside the box is not an option for them, unsure of their abilities to make informed assessments maybe, they seek safety in numbers. Thus it is that they are terribly concerned to point out that "very few people comment on Barford's blog" (and pass derogatory comment on those who do), or that allegedly, very few archaeologists think like I do, or think much of me for saying what I consider to be the case (some of them repeating what unnamed colleagues in a moment of unguarded unprofessionalism have allegedly "said about" me). We've seen how Mr Winter is desperate to get the number of his "followers" up to 200, and now lowering the tone of his blog to the hoi polloi he can receive more group approval. Mr Stout hopes that, if as ambassador to the hobby, he publishes enough rude things to attract attention, he'll get a lot of visitors to his blog. This affirmation of the number of people who think and behave like they do seems a primary concern for these people. I suspect from looking at all this that they'd all feel very uncomfortable coming out and saying something which is not a crowd-pleaser.


It is quite clear from observing the milieu that for many, if not most of them, part of being an artefact hunter is an identity thing. Part of the attraction is, the ability to be seen as part of a defined group, a group with its own norms of behaviour, attitudes, traditions and ideology. In order to function as such, the group has to have its unity reinforced by various tactics. It has to be a "Cool Gang" to belong to. Being seen as "finders of Treasure" and receiving public acclaim for that is one of these factors (nicely supplied by their partner, the PAS). The nerdyness of mastering the various machines and interpreting the squeaks, screeches and whistles they emit and the ability to say things about another finder's partifacts are other factors. Another helpful thing in creating group identity is to envisage, or depict group members as opponents of an (evil) "Other" which threatens it from outside.

The danger of this of course is that what is seen within the group as representing "Coolness" is all-too-easily seen as thuggish and anti-social behaviour by non-group members. The only answer these "ambassadors of the hobby" seem at present to have to that being noted in a broader context is step up the insulting behaviour. Time will tell if that was the best tactic for the milieu to choose.

John 11 September 2013 at 8:26 am

"Thanks Johno. I understand your strength
of feeling, but I have edited your post.
I don’t condone violence".