Yesterday, I wrote on the discussion ensuing from Scott Clark's contribution to the Day of Archaeology. Note this is on a website about archaeologyand archaeologists, what they do etc. In the discussion of Mr Clark's contribution, a question was asked (by a metal detectorist) about how to reach the understanding needed for artefact hunters to work for the common good alongside archaeologists. I added a few comments and the reaction from th metal detectorist was predictable: Yes, it is if the person taking part in it sees absolutely no difference between what Mr Clark does with his metal detector and what the majority of 'relic hunters' use it for (the clue is in the name). Equally it is a waste of time if the person taking part sees no difference between Mr Clark's attitude towards archaeologists and that of the constant anti-archaeological campaign of the likes of the Stout-Howland blog. But then, I doubt whether anyone really ever had any intention of inviting someone like Messrs Stout or Howland to the negotiating table. When the time comes for the inevitable public debate about the treatment of the portable archaeological heritage (which of course need not entail "killing" anyone or anything), it will be about the thugwit element in artefact hunting and collecting which is preventing progress and not with them. Mr Stout's demonstrative walking out of a discussion is therefore a loss to nobody.Dick Stout August 5, 2013 at 1:46 am #Well now that Mr. Barford has entered into this conversation I will depart. His goal is and always has been kill the metal detecting pastime, and if you doubt me please subscribe to his blog, and see how many posts are devoted to “tekkies” who hoik things out of the ground. To continue any dialogue with this individual is a waste of time. [...]
Mr Stout might also consider the wisdom exhibited by complaining to archaeologists that digging a narrow little hole blindly into an archaeological site at the spot where a metal-seeking tool suggests there is a potentially collectable archaeological find is described as "hoiking". I would imagine most archaeologists who've seen a site riddled with these holes (or the grass plugs which hide the damage) and a significant but unknown part of the archaeological evidence missing would describe the activity in much the same way.
By the way, unlike many collectors' forums and discussion lists, you do not need to "subscribe" to (register with) my blog, just click on the URL and it's fully open access as a public resource.
Scott Clark, "Metal Detecting and Archaeological Advocacy – Some Observations and Ideas from a Detectorist", July 26, 2013.
