When it comes to artefact hunting, it would seem from the "Posthole" poll ("How could relations between archaeologists and metal detectorists be improved?") that archaeology students in British universities probably get their heads filled with all sorts of ideas radiating from the PAS (see heritage Action 'Is there a hole in The Post Hole’s poll?', 23.02.14). I suppose the first question is why is it "metal detectorists" and not "bulldozer drivers", "deep-ploughing farmers" or any of the other agents of erosion and destruction? I assume the point of getting better relations with the latter would be to help prevent erosion, so it's odd to see the Postholers merely wanting to become better pals with the eroders.
How about adding to their questions:
- Better access for outsiders to detecting forums so archaeologists can learn about detecting from detectorists' own words?
- concerted action on non-reporting artefact hunters from within the community,
- Acknowledgement and open discussion of the connection between artefact hunting in the UK and other manifestations of artefact collecting,
- Acknowledgement and open discussion of the differences between artefact hunting and archaeology,
- What kind of regulation would be most effective (and what is it trying to achieve)?