More on Rallies From Wessman, Deckers, Lewis, Thomas and Nolet

Above I offered a few preliminary comments on a text on "Advances in Archaeological Practice" written by Anna Wessman, Pieterjan Deckers, Michael Lewis, Suzie Thomas and Katelijne Nolet ("Metal-Detecting Rallies: Characterizing the Phenomenon, Understanding the Challenges, and Identifying Strategies for Heritage Protection"). 

In it, the authors almost come to the obvious conclusion, that the best way to deal with the issues is that "large-scale group events are regulated through legislation", but of course shy away from coming right out and saying it:

"[if we don't do this] it is essential that archaeologists and policy makers continue to promote stewardship among detecting communities and begin to educate organizers to ensure better practices and to mitigate archaeological damage.

["begin", eh? PMB] They go on:

We advocate an approach where archaeologists, working with the detecting community, encourage organizers and individuals to take more responsibility for what happens at these events. If organized well, it is even possible that attendees will get more enjoyment, knowing that they are creating knowledge rather than depriving others (not just archaeologists) of it. This approach is not without challenges, but we hope that detectorists are keener to be acknowledged for the benefits their hobby—if practiced responsibly—can add to knowledge than be ostracized for damaging it.[...]

Competing Interests

The authors declare none. [...]

Well actually they should, shouldn't they? Because their interest is in promoting that nice simple "Suzie and Bonnie" view of the "responsive" artefact hunters who just need a bit of head-patting to make into ardent avocational archaeologists. You see this glib assumption running right through this article. This comes from the Tony Gregory/Denison-Dobinson days, three decades ago when detectors had only just stopped running on steam power, and it seems rarely has it been questioned. Most archaeologists never go deeper into what tekkies write on their forums when they think nobody is looking. And it shows. Here it shows. 

What is notable is that in proposing ideas about the detecting community and affecting the detecting community, the authors did NOT ask any metal detectorists from the three case study areas to be co-authors, or even read through and comment on a draft. Why were the authors not curious as to the reactions of the "responsible and responsive" metal detectorists they insist are out there just waiting for some archies to descend from their ivory tower, to graciously tell them how they "will get more enjoyment, knowing that they are creating knowledge rather than depriving others (not just archaeologists) of it" and why they should be "keener to be acknowledged for the benefits their hobby can add to knowledge"? Are they not curious [courageous enough] to see what reaction a draft of this text would get on a forum asking members for comments. Why? This directly affects detectorists does it not?