Saturday 26 October 2019

Tattooed Harry: "You Fink I'm Fick? Nah, I'm Just Having a Laugh While Trashing the Past"

Tattooed Harry digs on grassland
On another of his ego-stroking over-long videos Tattooed Harry Moore asks 'YOU THINK IM THICK ?.. Metal detecting uk' (posted on You Tube 4 Dec 2018 - on the 'iDetect' channel). Well,... the guy found a fragment of a Bronze Age palstave, but did not recognise it (though has been in metal detecting for three years), made a film and this is the follow up.

"After my prev's video quite a lo'a people came to'th' assumshun that I was, absolut'ly fick', he says by way of introduction. Hmm. You can skip the superfluous 'I-got-a-drone' shots to hear why (here). You see, the tattooed guy explains, there are two types of people in UK artefact hunting, there are those who take their intervention with the fragile and finite archaeological resource with some seriousness, and those just out to have a laugh while out there trashing the archaeological record and filling their pockets with historical objects. He is denigrating the 'diehard' serious ('responsible') detector users, and seems unlikely to ever consider joining their ranks.

He did not know what he had found and when he showed the FLO (Katie Hinds), he discovered that he'd found a "free-fousand, foive-hundrid year old weppin" ... well, actually it was not the FLO (the object a year on is not in the PAS database) who enlightened him, but a fellow metal detectorist. Harry had just put the unrecognised "fing" in his bag. Which is good because he candidly says "Oi fought this wuz a piece uv scrap, and I (sic) am very lucky I kep' it [...], if oi wuz close t' a bush, wen I first foun' this, I would'da frew it in the bush, 100%". "So please..." he goes on, "when your findin' stuff an' your not shore, make shur yer savin' it and taking it home wiv you". Hmm.  I think if they are finding and removing archaeological evidence they do not understand, they have no chance of properly recording the site that they are trashing. 'Tattooed Harry' is just hoiking stuff to tick off items in his 'bucket list' of trophies to exercise bragging rights over. He is not, in any way, helping extend out knowledge of the past.

His videos are also crap, he needs to do a course on editing. Anyway for what it's worth here's more 'from their own mouths' evidence of just how far from on-the-ground (in-the-field) reality the pro-PAS spin actually is. Just a mouse click away.



Anonymous said...

Your arguments are lost amongst the condescension and snobbery, I'm afraid.

Paul Barford said...

There are no "arguments" here. I think "Tattooed Harry" pretty freely speaks for himself. Over and over again. What various groups of readers of this blog makes of that, I could not possibly say.

Brian Mattick said...

I think Jamie is suggesting that Harry and what he does should be given respect. I disagree, it's respecting him and his behaviour that has served us so ill. We shouldn't forget that in Ireland he'd simply be locked up for what he does.

Paul Barford said...

In Poland (and most of the EU and civilised world) too. But harry and Jamie will suggest that protecting the archaeology from greedy and clueless looters is somehow "wrong"

Brian Mattick said...

Well certainly Harry & Co. The rights of a freeborn Englishman etc. But I doubt Jamie thinks protecting the archaeology from greedy and clueless looters is somehow "wrong", more likely that with education, liaison, understanding and patience people like Harry will become neo-archaeologists, national assets. I don't and I have 20 years of evidence I'm right.

Anonymous said...

Nope, I mean that the way in which Bartford presents his case and irrespective of its strengths and weaknesses, it reeks of condescension and snobbery.

Brian Mattick said...

Well I grew up with an outside WC up the garden but I recognise Harry is a selfish, thoughtless ruffian who damages everyone's interest. Is that being snobbish?

I think half the problem with metal detecting is normal people pulling their punches over the fact so many metal detectorists are selfish, thoughtless ruffians who damage everyone's interest. How about you Jamie?

Anonymous said...

There is considerable difference between referring to an individual as a "...selfish, thoughtless ruffian who damages everyone's interest." and seeking to rubbish them from the off via both a loaded moniker (Tattooed Harry) and a phonetic transcription of their words, which has but one intent. Play the ball, not the man as they say.

Paul Barford said...

Jamie, tattoos are not birthmarks. I have none, nobody in my family has one, nobody I work with has one on any visible part of their body. Nobody in any corporation, ministry, company or institute I come into contact through my work has one. I assume one gets tattoos done with some thought for the image they project. The same as the way one chooses to speak and behave when on camera. The subject of the film this post discusses projects an image, to me, to you, to anybody who watches his video. His channel is "about" him, that image, including the customary junk food consumption scenes he did in many of them, the comments he made about 'The man in the Hat'

Jamie, if you think we can write differently about 'salt of the earth' characters like the ones I feature, you create a rival blog about the high court judges and prominent conservationists that are detectorists. Maybe do an interview with Rupert Rees-Mogg about the metal detecting club at Eton to offset the picture that we really do get from observing the average member of a detecting forum or detecting-related Facebook page. Let's see who you will convince.

You must remember that bit at the end of the 'other' Code of practice, the bit about being an ambassador to the hobby, because the hobby WILL be judged by the behaviour of the people associated with it. People like Harry, here. People like Steve Taylor, John Howland, Norman Kennedy, Clive Hallam, Gary Brun, Steve Burch, "Deepseeker", "Coldfeet", "Edward Thompson", Peter Clarke and a whole host of others mentioned on this blog - and the other

Anonymous said...

All of which serves to prove my original contention. It matters not that many of those who don't meet your prescription of what constitutes sufficient education might well be responsible individuals with a genuine passion for what they do, nor that they might well record all their finds and possibly donate them to museums. No, if they sport tattoos and and speak with anything less that grammatically correct received pronunciation, then they have no right to their history. I thought that sort of academic protectionism and elitism had died out with the Stop! campaign.

Brian Mattick said...

No Jamie, he IS "a selfish, thoughtless ruffian who damages everyone's interest" and suggesting that he should be respected in any way is irrational. He's better off in prison, where everyone has tattoos.

As for your complaint that it's wrong to say people who look like him "have no right to their history" I'd disagree. People who look like him AND people who don't look like him have no right to excavate in the selfish, damaging way they do. Metal detecting is just about the lowest peak of human achievement. Archaeology is less damaging and less selfish so let the lot of them, tattoed or otherwise, join amateur archaeology clubs.

Paul Barford said...

Jamie, we all have the right to use public parks, we all have the rights to use the park benches, what you, Harry, Baz or anyone else do not have the "park bench rights" to do is smash them up ans walk off with some of the pieces. That is what is happening here. You seem to confuse "history" with "trophy antiquities". They are NOT the same thing.

Why STOP stopped (check it out) is because it was postulated that people with metal detectors could use their hobby to better themselves, learn about history, and through the recording of the context of the material they took away, OUR knowledge of 'history' would be enhanced.

That is why we now have a PAS and not regulation of the hobby. All well and good if it works. But it does not in fact work, because a lot of people going into MD are not at all concerned about their responsibilities. Many are there for bragging rights (as here), just 'out for a laugh' (as here) and totally unable to learn anything (...), let alone make a proper record of context of something they do not understand. Which is where 'education' and 'educationability' come in. As I have long pointed out, there is massive evidence that the whole PAS project is based on false premises, a false vision of who goes metal detecting and why, and what they can and cannot be relied on to do. There is a deliberate effort in UK archaeology to avoid the evidence from the social media that paints a picture that differs from the cuddly-wuddly one foisted off on us by the PAS and its supporters.

Anonymous said...

"Metal detecting is just about the lowest peak of human achievement." I see you're not given to hyperbole...

I've worked with archaeologists (professional and amateur) and as in all walks of life, some have been good and knowledgable and some have been poor. I think one might have even had a tattoo (shudder).

The issue I have with you and Barford is your constant carping and absolutist stance, one, although diametrically opposed, as fundamentalist as any of those tattooed, non-reporting, undeserving oiks that you imagine make up the entire population of detectorists.

It's not even as if I don't have some sympathy for some of your concerns, but your snobbish, elitist, arrogant attitude and your highly-inaccurate representation are so unpleasant, so alienating that it is difficult to engage in any positive way; although, if truth be told, I don't think either of you want positive engagement. Further, you fail to provide any sort of solution or compromise outside of a fundamentalist, outright ban, which currently, is not only highly unlikely and therefore of little positive use, but brings with it its own set of associated problems.

Hougenai said...

Why is it that detectorists are so thin skinned? Why the outrage when someone points out their failings? Is it possible we are seeing another result of PAS's 20 years of touchie feelie 'Don't upset a recorder/reporter' policies.
Detectorist looking for 'you are clever', 'nice find mate' and similar fawning comments under poorly filmed and edited video on You Tube should expect criticism and ridicule, at least in the real world.

Anonymous said...

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making assumptions about me and my intentions, although it does further serve to illustrate the point about about arrogance that I made in my last response to Brian.

Paul Barford said...

First of all, his more literate pals call him Brian not Brain, my name is Barford, not Bartford. Secondly, nobody is making any "assumptions" about "you" (you speak for yourself here) and I could not give a tinkers about your "intentions", I answered the point you made. Why get so defensive about everything and play the victim? You use my blog to say what you think of me (ignoring points 3, 5 and 6 of my notes for commenters), and I presume you will accept (since it IS my blog) I may use MY blog to answer you.

Paul Barford said...

"snobbish, elitist, arrogant attitude and your highly-inaccurate representation are so unpleasant, so alienating"

Got it in one. This blog is about artefact hunters an collectors, not for them.

The PAS and allied organisations are for engaging with them, they are doing a very ineffective job of it (because they start with false premises). They are engaged in producing a 'tame' image of collectors and collecting which the public swallow. I think that is damaging. This blog therefore presents the rationale for NOT engaging with them, as there is no point, and just prolongs the damage. Metal detecting only has its present form because public opinion goes along with it, let's challenge the public to think again... reassess those opinions.

Brian Mattick said...

Jamie, most of 27,000 people will be out metal detecting this weekend yet PAS statistics will show they reported very little. From that we must deduce either that most of them are a bit simple to keep going or that they are selfish and antisocial. I don't think they're simple. There's my "proof". Where's yours?

As for calling for a "ban" being fundamentalist, no, it's largely mainstream beyond these shores. For entirely rational reasons. Criticising Paul for having the same view as the bulk of archaeologists and educated people abroad reveals more about you than him.

Now I do think you should stop, this site is about conservation not exploitation.

Anonymous said...

(edit) Post will be in several parts as it is too long to be accepted as one.

Adieu; Part One

It has now been over forty-eight hours, I believe, since I left a comment that Barford, not surprisingly, has failed to post up. So yes, Brian, probably no point in discussing this further, but I'll say this: irrespective of the rights and wrongs of some of Barford's main contentions, his arguments and analogies attempting to support his case are highly amusing. To wit:

Loaded Argument No.1: Barford accuses iDetect of 'double dipping' or detecting on pasture; his point being, presumably, that it is against the code of conduct. I detect on pasture. Up until two years ago, however, it was arable. Can Barford be sure that the iDetect's pasture is ancient? Did he bother to find out? If not, why not?

Loaded Argument No.2: Was iDetect near Sparsholt? Did Barford get confirmation? If not, why not? If so and it wasn't Sparsholt, a retraction might be in order; or, if it is Sparsholt, then, as Barford should know, it doesn't necessarily follow that the woodland iDetect is in makes up part of that scheduling. Needless to say, if iDetect was on scheduled land, then the case is clear, but snide remarks and supposition do not an argument nor proof make.

Loaded Argument No.3: Barford argues that iDetect's failure to recognise part of a Bronze Age axe is indicative of his thickness. Tell that to the Time Team, who frequently got things wrong as have archaeologists that I have worked with, some of whom knew bugger all about small finds or osteology. Does that make them lesser? Of course not; we all have our expertise and our gaps; it's how we learn.

Loaded and Amusing Analogy No.1: Barford seems to think that vandalising council property, an illegal act, is equivalent to not reporting finds, which, whilst far from ideal (where it happens), is not illegal. Of course, he loads his argument by implying that vandalism of context occurs during the process, but this is far from the case with the vast majority of finds we make. I suggest he takes on the law and leaves alone those going about their perfectly lawful business. Incidentally, a more accurate analogy illustrating his skewed perspective would be taking the park bench and smashing up the park in the process.

Anonymous said...

Adieu: Part Two:

Loaded and Amusing Analogy No.2: Quote "But "coins and artEfacts" are not "knowledge" any more than spotting a Maserati in the high street adds to our knowledge of engineering or metallurgy or the demographics of who drives them. Who told you they were?"

Well put like that, no, but if that Maserati had been there some time and started to corrode, some information might be garnered about the metallurgy. Equally, if there were a driver within, certainly it would contribute to our understanding of the ownership demographic. Finally, it if were subsequently spotted in several different locations, it would tell us much about it's travel and usage. I'm being flip, but coins and artefacts en masse most certainly do increase our knowledge. Recorded coin finds, for example, tell us lots about economies (local and national) and trade routes etc. as well he knows as do you.

Loaded and Amusing Analogy No. 3: "Conservation is not about shooting all the rhinos so we can see their horns in foreign shops, is it?"

Well, in point of fact, not that I like it, but controlled commercial trophy hunting has seen populations of certain animals increase. You could even argue that, like archaeology, protection comes via a certain level of controlled destruction. Finally though, in the main, we are destroying (killing) nothing before tearing from it, a 'trophy'. Barford would have you think otherwise (partly in an attempt to tar detectorists and the much-loathed big game trophy hunters with the same brush), but 99% of my finds have disturbed absolutely nothing other than worms, found as they have been, in long-ploughed fields.

You both seem to think that individuals should be judged by the laws of other countries. Leaving aside that some of those countries are now looking to start their own PAS-style scheme, why is that valid? Would you mind adults sleeping with fifteen year olds? After all, the French think it's fine. Should the French think themselves child molesters because the UK age of consent is sixteen? Needless to say, we work with our laws. If you don't like them, seek to change them, but try not persecuting those that are doing nothing wrong as UK law stands.

More to follow.

Anonymous said...

Adieu Part Three

All of which brings me to your 27,000 figure, Brian. Where does that come from? HA? Ha! Leaving aside the fact that it is a voluntary system, as well as your deductions as to why, supposedly, PAS recordings will suggest underreporting, we could also suggest the following:

i) The 27,000 figure could be rubbish. Is it based on detector sales? Rally attendance? It needs qualifying.
ii) Are those supposed 27,000 regularly active? Not everybody goes out every weekend. Certainly I don't. How many go once or twice having got a detector for Christmas, find nothing and then give up?
iii) I sometimes find nothing and quite frequently find nothing worth recording. This is true for all detectorists.
iv) Many do not have access to private land (thus the success of commercial rallies) and therefore probably won't be out this weekend.
v) Sometimes it'll be several weeks before I submit finds to a FLO and several months before they find their way onto the database, sometimes without a find date.
vi) We all know that stats can be made to say what we want them to.
vii) FLOs frequently turn stuff away.
viii) Some are perfectly happy finding Georgian and Victorian coins and artefacts which aren't necessary to record. Are they simple?
ix) The detecting season is short; my main site is only available for about eight weeks per year.
xi) Many detect exclusively on beeches, not generally known for their ancient history or recordable finds.

That's not to say there aren't issues (I'd like to see everybody recording) and maybe I'm right, maybe I'm not, but my deductions are as valid as yours; more so indeed, because in the absence of a more nuanced examination, yours as presented are little more than good old-fashioned prejudice, with your binary simple/selfish choice so laughably loaded it belongs alongside the 'have you stopped beating your wife' fallacy.

Anyway, I'm done. It's been a fun and highly illuminating week and remember, I'm not even unsympathetic to some of your concerns! Toodle pip.

Paul Barford said...

Despite Brian's advice, Mr "Jamie" sent a whole series of long "replies" that add nothing to what has already been said about what we saw in the Tattooed Harry video and the points I made about it in the post above.

The post above makes three main specific points, none of which are addressed in the latest flood of words from Mr "Jamie", who is in addition not exactly courteous in their expression.

Like most detectorists, instead of engaging with the points made above, he simply ignores what was said and the underlying point they make and goes off on a series of smokescreen and ill-formulated/poorly integrated tangents that I have no intention of discussing here. That is no way to have a discussion, it just becomes a shouting match.

As Brian points out this is a blog (MY blog) about conservation, so the analogies with rhino hunting ARE entirely relevant whether or not an unthinking metal detectorist is in denial.

I reiterate, as an archaeologist who has in his time handled "quite a lot" of coins and artefacts from archaeological contexts, it is not the artefacts themselves that provide archaeological knowledge about the past, Mr Jamie is confused.

Yes, Mr Jamie, we are now very well informed where exactly Tattooed Harry was detecting in those videos. No 'retraction' from me is needed. The significance of the fact that "iDetect" just recently deleted his whole video channel when challenged over this might be given some thought...

And the "27000" figure that Mr Jamie finds so "amusing" is discussed in the material that I referenced here a few days ago in reply to another one of his smokescreen comments:
and it would seem that - despite having it presented on a plate - he has not bothered to read it. That makes his (very long) discussion of it totally worthless because the "points" he makes are already addressed in the original article. Apparently "too many words" for him.

As for "it has now been over 48 hours since I left a comment that Barford (sic), not surprisingly (sic), has failed (sic) to put up".... Instead of the rude indignant playing the victim moan, Mr Jamie might consider the facts that (a) this is MY blog, (b) he is doing nobody a favour by writing here, (c) has already made ample use of my hospitality, and (d) there are some pretty clear guidelines in the side bar about what I will and will not post. Perhaps that also was "too many words" for him too?

Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.