Over on an anti-archaeological blog near you, Butch
Holcombe and Jeff Lubbert, the relic Roundup Staff of The American Digger Magazine ("
for diggers and collectors of America's heritage") announce "we’ll push forward in our drive to get relic hunters and archaeologists working towards a more common goal than petty arguing”. It is worth taking a look then at the magazine's webpage to see where and how that "drive" is reflected. The webpage is
here. The magazine is also on
Twitter and
Facebook.
The blurb announces: "
If you are a relic hunter, metal detectorist, or
historical collector of any kind, this is your magazine!", why, if they
claim to be in a "drive" to bridge a gap are archaeologists, historians
and heritage professionals here excluded? Do they not "preserve" the
past? Is this not a tacit admission by the magazine's editorial staff
that the two are NOT in fact engaged in the same thing? If you look through the front covers illustrated in the web, there are none (none that I saw) that carry a headline suggesting that inside is an article by an archaeologist setting out what is what from an archaeological point of view. I guess it's not that kind of magazine. So much for the "drive".
The magazine proclaims it is "
dedicated to those who preserve our past through responsible digging and collecting". This immediately raises a barrier. No mention is made here about preservation through documentation (record) nor indeed preserving a site by NOT "digging" holes in it, "responsibly" or not. There is notably no up-front definition of "responsible". The only clue is on the
About Us page:
"Our Mission: To promote the responsible excavation and collecting of all artifacts related to America. We strongly oppose illegal recovery and wanton destruction of artifacts. Please dig responsibly. Our hobby depends on it!
So is for them the term "responsible" merely the opposite of "illegal"? The webpage tells us what we will find in their magazine. Lots of information about isolated objects, how to recognize them, collect them, restore (sic), preserve them. Nothing mentioned about documenting a context, cataloguing and reporting them, getting them published or in any kind of public record. In other words, long on "collecting adventures" short on collectors' responsibilities. That obviously is no real foundation for working with archaeology or heritage organizations.
The links page is particularly revealing. Listed are quite a lot of "
great sites covering everything from US colonial era/or earlier to modern day relic hunting, metal detecting finds, equipment, preservation, artifact or equipment purchases, clubs and associations!" Oh yes! There are twelve MD clubs listed, but not a single mention of any archaeological body or association, which is odd if they are indeed advocating working with them. Plenty of dealers, though. There is also a link to the
Stout-Howland anti-archaeological blog, a great expression of American Digger's desire to bury the hatchet with US archaeologists. Other notable links include the
World Wide Associate of Treasure Seekers ("
Our Mission Statement: Preserve, Promote and Protect the right to the use of the Land and Natural Resources for “We the People” now and in the future") and a site selling Soviet military gear. You can also send a greeting to "
a US military personnel (sic) stationed overseas" through the website, possibly sponsor a drone or support the personnel of a Black Site, who knows.
Most interesting of all is a link to Butch Holcombe's own artefact sale site:
Greybird Relics
Butch and Anita Holcombe offer civilian and military relics and collectibles from the Civil War. Items range from buttons and bullets to Victorian jewelry. Both dug and non-dug artifacts.
He deals in, among other things, dugup antiquities.
The collecting histories and provenances of the ones on the website are scant - no documentation appears to be offered confirming legally dug status (copy of landowner search permission and handover agreement for example). Findspots described in vague and cutesy terms: "
from good ground near Chattanooga, TN", "
From South Carolina Lowcountry", "
found at a South Carolina plantation site", "
Found in a privy in Port Hudson, LA", "
The Confederate Wishing Well in Savannah, GA. This was a find made in the early 1980's, in which thousands of Confederate bullets were found, dumped per orders to keep the Yanks from getting them when the Confederates abandoned Savannah".
All of this flies in the face of the
AIA Code of Ethics, which obviously
hinders any archaeologist adhering to such an ethical code from collaborating in any way with Mr Holcombe and his pals. Not that there is any evidence from the website that this is indeed what its production team actually have in mind, and surely their website would be expected to spearhead such a "drive". The declaration that it is their aim
to get relic hunters and archaeologists working towards a common goal seems instead to be little more than one of the measures adopted by artefact hunters to deflect scrutiny and criticism by providing their exploitive and archaeologically erosive hobby with a facade of respectability rather than an expression of a real need of the collectors and dealers hiding behind the facade to actually engage in such long-term collaboration.
It is insufficient to claim there is some kind of "common ground" ("old things"?) between archaeology and relic hunting, and dismiss as do Holcombe et al any attempts to discuss the issues more deeply as "petty arguing”. In order to build a bridge across any gap that exists, obviously one has first to define the width and depth of that gap, but also the precise nature and extent of the "common ground" which is to form the foundations of any such bridge. If there are fundamental differences in the foundations, then they surely have to be explored, understood and dealt with before one can start to build on them. Dismissing them as "petty" is no basis on which to build any kind of partnership.
Photo:
Riker-mount show-and-tell/ trophy antiquities. Battlefield archaeology turned into commodity collectables.
