England's Bobble-Hat Detectorists Dodge the Issues Again

Over on the home page of a metal detecting forum near you, the artefact hunter members are grumbling:

"For some reason the recent Santa Hat Rally seems to have offended a blogger; his rant can be found here [no link given in fact - PMB, the article is I assume this one]. We aren't going to get involved with a slanging match with him and will not be commenting on his blog"
Admin, "Negative Write Up, Detecting Englands Response", 21.12.2013

and why not, pray? Because you do not really understand what this is about? As readers will recall, I was questioning the media coverage which presented what these people were doing as "archaeology". it would have been interesting to hear the club's own side of that story. I pointed out that the journalist's confusion was a direct result of current PAS public-speak about artefact hunting. I questioned the fact that finds were, according to the newspaper article being "recorded by a friend of mine from Cardiff" and was asking what this in fact meant. Again, it would have been more useful to the debate on what is happening to Britain's archaeological heritage to have some further information from the club as to what was involved, instead of a point-blank refusal to discuss the matter further.

Instead of coming out in the open and explaining what is happening, the club's admin only wishes to keep its own members informed, hang the rest of us that might have read that misleading (?) article:
"DE Member, [...] we thought we would let all DE members know what our thoughts are". So they stress that "all historical finds dug up on Detecting England digs are recorded with a Local Finds Officer", the administrators say that "no one on the digs claims to be an archaeologist and members don't describe them as archaeological in nature" leaving it still unclear where the journalist got the idea that they did from. The administrators  claim "we are just finding lost stuff [...] on agricultural land [...] so anything we find [...] are (sic) being saved from further damage". They add "the finds are never going to be in a meaningful archaeological context due to the ploughing".  So these "thoughts" are more or less the same superficial points detectorists all over the country come up with to explain waway any problems with what they do.

1) Finds in ploughsoil are not all without meaningful context, this is a myth artefact hunters like to trot out, totally ignoring the huge literature indicating the opposite (I published a bibliography of it for them on the PAS Forum, now gone when it was deleted). There is a whole branch of archaeology which works with precisely the analysis of the patterns of surface material across large areas, including from ploughted sites. These techniques have been adopted in other countries, Italy, Greece, and the Near East with the same kinds of results. I really do not see why this myth is allowed to persist by the British archaeological community (who was among the main pioneers of such techniques for goodness sake). Bonkers Britain.

2) Finds in ploughsoil are said to be being destroyed to a degree that justifies large scale hoiking. I am sure every detectorist has a two-pence piece covered with corrosion, or a shattered hammie to show - see? Look! But the truth is that when you look at the literature (I have) and when you look at the physical evidence - like for example we did the other day on the basis of the photos of freshly dugup artefacts from two British metal detecting magazines, there is little hard evidence to support this proposition, based on anecdote and "common sense", but not actually backed up by many hard observable facts.

3) To describe the removal as collectable geegaws of archaeological artefacts (hammered and Roman coins, Bronze Age tools and weapons, Roman fibulae) as merely "lost objects" simply shows a complete misunderstanding of the issues involved.   

 Bobble-hat-wearing detectorists may not want to come on this blog and discuss the issues sensibly, for one reason or another, but this does not mean the issues will go away. Of course they are in denial. One "paul mower" claims:

The blogger is a well known individual who delights in expounding opinions which have no basis in reality. Occasionally it is just best to draw a line under it and ignore him!

The way to deal with opinions that have no basis in reality is to demonstrate that fact. This should be pretty easy if they are making it up, no? The reality, Mr Mower, is that a newspaper article was written and published and raised points that should be being discussed. The reality is that in reply to some of that information being questioned, the "Admin" of Detecting England wrote some more stuff which raises a whole series of other questions. There is no sense in pretending that there are not real issues here, but if you like, you carry on ignoring them, and I and other concerned writers will carry on pointing them out, let us see who gets the most listeners when it comes to the crunch.

DETECTING ENGLAND FINDS 22 X RALLIES:D 

BRONZE AGE AXE HEADS 6, GOLD VICTORIAN BROOCH 1, GOLD RING 1, BRONZE AGE SPEAR TIP 1, HAMMEREDS 69, ROMAN BRONZE 16, POST SILVERS 49, SILVER THIMBLE 5, PILGRIMS AMPULA (sic) 3, SPINDLE WHORLS 17, CROTAL BELLS 16, SILVER DENARI 7, BRONZE AGE AXE FRAG 1, ROMAN FIBULA 10, TERRET RING 1, HAWKING WHISTLE 1, GEORGIAN FOB SEAL 1, SEAL MATRIX 1, SILVER ANNULER (sic) RING BROOCH 1

and where did they all go after recording? What archaeological information was lost when some of them were hoiked on those 22 rallies (none of which - nota bene - despite the "my friend in Cardiff" are noted in the list of "rallies known to the Scheme")?

UPDATE 24.12.13:
Uh-oh, another one hiding the posts. The thread about the alleged "negative write-up" and the attendant public-information statement and members' comments (with the virtual flashmob of jesticulating smilies without which no detectorist can express his thoughts) are now hidden from prying eyes.