Focus on Metal Detecting: Can't use a Search Engine?

Quite apart from their inability to actually engage in any serious discussions of the issues and constant desire to deflect discussion or discredit the conservationsts, some metal detectorists seem not to be able to read. One of them writes today that a blogger in Warsaw is not covering the stories that as an inveterate hater of all things archaeological, he'd like to hear more of:

"I just wish we would hear more from him about things like:

Top Macedonian Archaeologist Held Over Artefacts Smuggling

Archaeologist Spared Jail

Antiquities Minister Facing Criminal Charges"

and also for some reason imperiously demands an academic cv from me.

One wonders what sort of person would raise such an issue without checking whether or not the allegation is true, the answer is just a mouse-click away. This blog is about portable antiquity issues and all three cases mentioned above are portable antiquity issues, so they are not only mentioned, but discussed in this blog. I really see no difference between artefact hunter doing something I consider dodgy with artefacts and archaeologists (like the Portable Antiquities Scheme) doing something I consider dodgy with artefacts and artefact hunters/collectors.

Long-term readers (or those cleverer-that-the-average-detectorist who've worked out  how the search engine works) will know that the first story to which the metal detectorist spitefully refers is already covered here on my blog:  'Macedonia's Kuzman Questioned', 'Update on Kuzman Case' - that was Wednesday, 17 July 2013. The facts discussed in the latter post seem not to have been taken on board by anti-archaeological  detectorists (for whatever reason). I will update these posts when new information comes my way.

The second topic was dealt with here: 'Bath archaeological thief caught after Bellarmine vase spotted on eBay', that was Thursday, 30 May 2013. I am not sure what "more" the detectorists want to hear.

And the third... Detectorist Stout's link goes to a way-out-weird site containing New Age material called "Conscious Life News" and contains articles such as "Astronomical Crop Circle" and "Alien Intervention on Earth", "Extraterrestrial Mummy Found In Egypt – Fact or Faked? [video]" and what about..."Great Pyramid Starmap Etching Depicts Age of 9200 BCE"? The interest of New Agers in seeing Hawass harrassed and disgraced was (among other things) that he would not give them permission to tunnel under the Sphinx to get into the alleged Hall of records some Cayesian idjits believe is there (of course its not and the Sphinx has enough stability problems without allowing crackpots to tunnel under it).

Zahi Hawass was accused by xenophobic US-hating opponents of organizing antiquity loans to the US for a travelling Tutankhamun exhibitions in the United States and Australia, Egypt’s ("the deal Hawass made allowed the transfer and display of 143 objects from the Egyptian Museum to Washington in 2003"). The case was thrown out, organizing such exhibitions promoting Egypt's culture abroad is what a Minister of Antiquities should be doing, no? Anyway, for what it is worth, this is what, for those that can use it, the search engine of this blog (up the top there) reveals is part of my account of the events:  'Hawass Apologises' Thursday, 22 September 2011; 'Former Minister Zahi Hawass Faces Charges Over US Museum Loans' and 'More Stolen Antiquities on Show in US' (both Monday, 2 April 2012);  'Egypt Court: US Exhibition Illegal' Saturday, 15 September 2012;  'Ex-Minister's Troubles Not Over', Wednesday, 30 January 2013, and "Zahi Hawass is Back" Friday, 7 June 2013. Again, I am not sure what "more" metal detectorist wants to hear from me. I expect he can follow the links I give and go off on his own to research the matter deeper if he wants.

It is my observation that these people tend to want everything given on a plate to them by somebody else. They are seldom keen to put any of their own effort into things. This is well-illustrated by the above material, some bloke asserts that "Barford" has avoided talking about certain issues (because of an assumed pro-archaeological bias), but he has not bothered to take just five minutes to check whether or not in fact these subjects were omitted on this blog. If he'd done that, he'd have seen that the three topics he highlights have been discussed, in some detail even. The notion "check before you accuse" seems not to function in this milieu (see above the ridiculous tekkie kneejerk fiasco over the Bosworth Boar discussed in the post above this). All episodes like this do is to make the metal detecting community look totally inept, unable to focus and incapable of engagement in any serious heritage debate.

 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".