Focus on Metal Detecting: More on "Truthiness" and Debate - Bull or Sheep?

It is interesting to note that among the ten most popular posts in the sidebar on the left there are quite a number today referring to the concept of the "truthiness" of what artefact collectors in general (and metal detectorists and ancient coin dealers in particular) are saying (currently here, here, here, here (anyone who does not believe is mentally illl), here (false identity), here and so on). I assume that among those readers will be those who consider that what we are told by the official media about metal detecting is the Whole Truth, and those who are more sceptical and who are following this debate with a more critical eye and are keeping an eye on the deceits perpetrated by collectors, dealers and their supporters.

Over on a metal detecting blog near you (one of those mentioned in a sidebar-featured post) and run by an admirer of the Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild, the author has a suggestion for a new feature for this blog:

Let me also suggest another change [Mr Barford]. Why not be totally honest and add this:

[That appears to be a question]. A guffawing sidekick from the UK's south coast adds to the suggestion

October 10, 2013 at 3:46 pm Yep, that sign would look even better in flashing lights over one of our cat loving pal’s more famous ‘porky pies’ …the heavily discredited, Artefact Erosion Counter. And talking of ‘porky pies’, that sign wouldn’t go amiss either as the strapline to Heritage Action’s [...], Heritage Journal blog, overseen by the illustrious Mercian, Master Baker ( I think I heard it right from one who knows him),….. [Nigel Swift]!

[for the puzzled, "porky pie" (reportedly) is Cockney rhyming slang for "lie"- note the recurrence of the "those (unnamed) who know him" motif]. Mr Stout asks why I do not add his logo to my blog. That seems a rather dumb question to me, but it probably makes sense in a metal detectorist's mind. As I have observed on this blog a number of times before, it is quite typical of the collecting milieus for their members to expect to be told what to think by their fellows. Very few of them check out and think through (or even read to the end) ideas presented, they simply jump on the bandwaggon and parrot what their neighbour says. A little red logo at the top of the blog is therefore just what such a group needs, to point the direction to tekkie-thought on a topic.  "Four legs good, two legs bad" type stuff.

Frankly, that kind of reader does not interest me in the slightest. I am more interested in the reader who does not want to be told what to think, who comes here and goes to other resources as a way of gaining information (and hearing opposing opinions) to assess for themselves what is going on. Maybe they will conclude that what is said here is 100% worthless waffle, or maybe they will conclude that among the waffle is a number of important issues. It's up to them. Obviously, I'm tapping away here trying to make the latter point and challenging the platitudes. 

Metal detectorists and coin dealers would like my readers to believe that what they read here is in some way not reflecting real situations and real issues. They want my readers to believe it when they say it's "100% bull" and "porkies". This is a leitmotif of their approach to the issues raised in this blog. Believing that it can be so blithely-dismissed, they do not have to drop the blinkers from their eyes, take off the "I am responsible" hat, or worry about any of this. They'll not have to think through the problems, discuss the issues, because - they are assured by the self-appointed sheepmasters - "it's all lies".  It is highly conveninent for sheep to believe unthinkingly what they are told.

 Since they are sheep, none of them will have noticed that absolutely no attempt is made to justify such statements. There is a gut-feeling, a "truthiness" that the critics (the Other) "must" be wrong. This is a view aided by the intentional smear-tactic (Der Giftpilz) caricatures of the critics themselves by the mileu, such as those by Mr Welsh and his wife recently. The sheep will not have noticed that on the one side the White Hat Guys (including this blog and the above-denigrated Heritage Journal) take concrete cases, hyperlink to them so their wider context can be seen, and then discuss them. This is undeniably the recurring pattern of activity on these two blogs. Now take a look at the metal detecting and coin collecting forums and blogs and see how their criticism of our position is dealt with. Is any real evidence presented assessed and discussed? Well, take a look, is it? Or do they most of the time just go for "ignore him,  he's...[random insult]" and schoolboy mentality name-calling ("Warsaw Wally", "Heritage Harry", "Master Baker Nigel") or scatological comments? Take a look and see.

 Specifically-mentioned above as one of the present author's allegedly "famous ‘porky pies’.." is what the metal detectorists Stout and Howland call "the heavily discredited, Artefact Erosion Counter". The first point is that although I collaborated on this project, the counter is neither my idea or authorship (though I fully endorse both). So there is the first "fact" wrong. In fact the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter is far from being heavily discredited yet. Indeed one might ask why. The Portable Antiquities Scheme, for example, recipient of more that 15 MILLION pounds to deal with portable antiquities issues has in those fifteen years to date done (still less published)  absolutely nothing to assess the rate at which the archaeological record of England and Wales is being depleted of "portable antiquities" (archaeological evidence) by artefact hunters as a result of current liberal "policies" (I use the term loosely). Is that not a little odd? What would they find if they did? What is stopping them from doing this?

In the eyes of these two detectorists the Heritage Action model is "heavily discredited" because "an archaeologist" from Florida Lisa McIntyre published two comments on Mr Stout's blog saying so. I have already dealt with efforts of the Jacksonville archaeology graduate to undermine the public awareness efforts of others:

"Focus on UK Metal Detecting: More Misunderstanding About "the Counter"...", Friday, 22 March 2013. (see also: "Renewed Focus on UK Artefact Hunting: Tekkies Criticise but Unable to Produce their own Figures ", Thursday, 21 March 2013).

There was (of course) absolutely no reply from the archaeologist (who admitted that she actually knew very little about the context of metal detecting in the UK and the debates surrounding it before she jumped in with her opinion). Neither are those replies of mine referred to in any way, let alone addressed,  on the "Stout Standards" (sic) blog, which seems a rather one-sided approach to the debate.  But debate was obviously not the point, summary dismissal was their only aim here (see above). [The position of Ms McIntyre however became less than clear when a short while after she wrote an attack on the Heritage Action model, she started to receive certain sums of money from the very same metal detectorists for whom she had written her 'critique'. Now, I am sure she needs that money for a good purpose, but it cannot be denied that this raises questions which cannot be ignored of a possible conflict of interest.] That aside, I welcome readers comparing what she wrote in support of her new tekkie friends, and what I replied. Please make your own minds up whether she has indeed "heavily discredited" what Heritage Action and myself are saying. I submit that it is clear that she has no real idea what she is talking about.

The Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter has been ticking away now quietly for over five years. Policy-makers and artefact collectors continue to ignore it, some myopic supporters of collectors try to dismiss it, but for five years it has been asking a question which urgently requires an answer.

So on one side, there are a few of us trying to point out using reasoned argument based on real cases and situations in the public forum that (a) there are serious issues with the way "portable antiquities"
 are being collected today which really need dealing with and (b) the people involved in the activity are primarily interest in presenting an opposing picture (one in which there are few such problems) and thereby block any moves for change. The position of the people on the other side is reflected by a near-total disregard for the actual facts of any related matter and mostly addresses ad hominem and dismissively the critics, rather than in any way addressing the criticisms. I submit that what we see on this metal detectorists' blog is a very clear example of precisely this approach, other examples of which you can see in the posts discussing the ACCG's recent statements and other tekkie writings.

TAKE A GOOD LOOK at this behaviour, for these are precisely the sort of people the PAS wants to grab more and more millions of public quid to make into the "partners" of the British Museum, archaeological heritage professionals and to whom they want us all to entrust the exploitation of the archaeological record. Take a good look and decide what you think about that as a "policy".  

UPDATE 14.10.13
For those of limited intellectual horizons, the only point noted in the above is that I correct Mr Stout and Howlands' error (12.10.13) in ascribing the sole authorship of the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter to me. That is not "the cracks are starting to appear", it is correcting their egregious error of fact. But what do artefact hunters care about any of that truth stuff? What use have they for the Truth?