Focus on UK Metal Detecting: More UK Tekkie "Truthiness"

We have seen time and time again here that metal detectorists and antiquity collectors generally cannot really cope with taking a good hard look at what they do. They cannot do it themselves and they hate it when others do and comment on what they see. We observe that they continue to prefer self-delusion to the truth, they see and then seek antagonism when archaeologists express concern about the effects of current policies and attitudes on the preservation of archaeological sites.

Over on a metal detecting blog near you, a metal detectorist sets out to show, since he is unable to actually address the real issues, that "Barford is to accuracy what Yuri Geller is to spoons…". He attempts ("UNESCO…The Myopic Leading the Shady?" Oct 7th 2013) to discuss the "trade in looted artifacts and antiquities particularly from Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and [...] Afghanistan" on the basis of second-hand information, in other words what he claims to have learnt from "a friend who’s well placed to comment on the international trade in illicit antiquities" (I leave it up to readers to determine whether a metal detectorist would know such a person in real life and in what circumstances). He reckons that

contrary to fringe archaeology’s (rabid) propagandists who manipulate the truth to suit their own anti-collecting agendas, metal detectorists are NOT the conduit through which these looted artifacts are reaching the antiquities markets [...]

Of course it is beyond this branch of truthiness to actually supply a link to where anybody, fringe or not, says that it is. Most diggers in those countries are too poor to comfortably afford the batteries for a metal detector, let alonge the machine itself. Nobody here, at least has ever claimed that looting in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, or Afghanistan is done with metal detectors or by metal detectorists (cunies and cylinder seals, Tell Brak figurines, animal mummies, papyrus rolls, scarabs and shabtis are not found with metal detectors).  Metal detectorists delight in creating and then dimissing their own straw man arguments. This is a clear case.

Just to make the point, the same UK detectorist has posted another piece of nonsense right below it ("New Kids on the Block" Oct 7th 2013). He claims to base this on the report of another unnamed local (so South Coast Bournemouth region) acquaintance.  I leave it up to the reader to decide on the balance of probability whether such a conversation took place at all. This anonymous source told him who of an (equally unnamed) "certain amateur archaeological society" which has collectors in it. Shock-horror-call-the-Daily-Mail, eh? This is hardly newsworthy, many archaeological societies in the UK have metal detectorists in them (the ones that want to join an archaeological society and then tell landowners they belong, or represent themselves to journalists as "amateur archaeologists"). I do not think there are many that explicitly reject new members on the grounds that they have a metal detector (examples please). Anyhow, that is not the point the tekkie is trying to get at. Exhibiting the schematic thought patterns characteristic of this whole milieu, and without checking, the detectorist jumps hastily to the conclusion:

"And not one item in those private collections registered with the PAS".

He then claims that up and down the country there are many counterparts to such "magpie archaeologists up and down the country" who also fail to report material to the PAS or HER. If however he'd actually checked the PAS annual reports for England and Wales, he'd find that there is a substantial number of portable antiquities reported to the PAS by archaeologists (just searching the PAS database with the term "archaeological" reveals 5810 records to date, but these records are not complete, not all finds resulting from archaeological activities are now being differentiated as such in the database). The proportion is even higher if we look at the statistics for Scotland. One effect of drawing attention to the number of PAS records resulting from the activity of archaeologists is that it further reduces the proportion of PAS records mitigating the effects of artefact-hunting. 

Of course once again, the actual details backing up the tekie claims are omitted. He alleges that the name of the society concerned "I am unable to reveal for reasons that will become obvious". Well actually they never are. Posession of artefacts, collecting or artefacts in the UK is not in any way forbidden by law. Neither in fact (if they are of legal origin and not in breach of any contract) is it forbidden by any Code of Practice in the UK.  In reality there is no reason why the tekkie cannot tell us that it was - for example - the Mingeborn Amateur Archaeological Society which has a few artefact collectors in it. So why does he not come up with the goods and name names if he has some? It is likewise feeble claiming "the libel laws prevent me from currently naming names" ("but some of those written down on the back of a pub’s beer mat, came as no surprise at all"). It is not libellous to say that amateur archaeologist Tarquin Suthern-Comfort has a little collection of Roman coins and brooches, the origins of which are unknown. It might be if libellous if the tekkie asserted without any back-up information that they were illegally obtained, but then if he actually has that information and has confirmed it, Howland should go to the police.

As for the names of the members of the Mingeborn Amateur Archaeological Society with artefact collections scribbled on the back of a single-sided English pub beermat allegedly coming "as no surprise at all", the mind boggles. Who are they? Local judges, policemen, museum curators and brain surgeons? Pillars of local society? 

What is to note here though is the typical tekkie tendency (and a tendency typical of collectors as a whole) to rely on the "two wrongs make a right" style of argument. According to one (anonymous) well-informed friend the illicit antiquities trade is allegedly largely the doings of "light-fingered archaeologists" and facilitated by "dubious museum curators [...], along with even more dubious heritage professionals out for a fast buck". Back in England, according to one (anonymous) well-informed friend,  the people allegedly not reporting the results of their artefact hunting are not artefact hunters but amateur archaeologists who are artefact hunters (eh?) who fail to meet what Howland describes as

"the high standards set by the UK’s metal detectorists and the Portable Antiquities Scheme".

I leave it up to the reader to decide the truth or otherwise of Mr Howland's claim to have any actual knowledge on these things on which to base his poorly-substantiated anti-archaeological allegations. It seems to me however that in general, artefact hunters and collectors, unable to point to any concrete evidence that answer points made by their critics, prefer to simply tell fibs - hoping nobody will challenge them.