At long last an academic has said about detecting: “a disjuncture exists between law (which defines activities that are illegal) and morality (which identifies behaviour that is wrong).” Morality, see? We’ve been obsessing about it for years while academics and archaeologists haven’t. Now it’s in the academic mainstream and hopefully archaeologists will start saying it too, the simple proposition that wantonly not reporting finds is immoral.
Diogenes of Sinope: “Virtue is better revealed in action than in theory”
In addition, plain speaking has just broken out among detectorists. A very senior member of the Detecting Wales Forum has just said, rather elegantly: “The often recited old mantra of “we save history” is laughable at best we don’t save history we dig up pieces of metal from history which are pieces of the jigsaw puzzle picture of history, for every detectorist who records ALL their finds over 300 years I’ll show you at least 10 that don’t so in fact we steal history by taking away parts of the full picture.” At almost the same moment another self-evidently thoughtful detectorist has said on his blog that although detectorist find many hoards … “it does not in my opinion justify the wholesale failure to record 1000’s of other items as maybe society has lost more with these unrecorded items?”
We ought to sue all three for plagiarism. Like us they risk personal abuse but what’s been said can’t be unsaid. It IS immoral to deliberately avoid reporting all your recordable finds and the vast majority of detectorists DON’T report all theirs. Sad that the Portable Antiquities Scheme still avoids saying either. Once, back in 2001, it was happy to say “The Scheme believes that people have a moral obligation to their heritage”, but that was quickly dropped to conform with the wishes of those who want reporting to be a purely voluntary matter, not a moral obligation. It’s been a bad choice, damaging to heritage, unfair to the public and in the end embarrassing to the Scheme.
It has also been insulting to many reasonable detectorists for it is surely not true they’d record less if it was now said to be morally obligatory? Only people who are already determined not to record would react like that. If that is the case – and it seems very likely that it is – it would have to be said that the policy has been based on a massive misjudgement and needs to be amended. Which is why we see the three quotes as encouraging. A few more and we could be speaking of early cracks in the prevailing paradigm. The sooner the better. Perhaps academics hold the key. Institutions like Glasgow University’s “Trafficking Culture” focus on illegal activity. Maybe in the case of Britain they should study the impact of immoral activity, the knowledge loss from which is demonstrably vastly greater?
.
Update 7 April 2014
There have been some interesting reactions to the above article elsewhere, none of them clear, so perhaps it would be reasonable to invite archaeologists (particularly those who the public are likely to hear) to respond to the core question to which the public is surely owed an answer:
Is wanton failure to report recordable metal detecting finds immoral? Or not?
Update (2) 7 April 2014
By happy happenstance this year’s Conference of the Institute for Archaeologists (“Setting standards for the study and care of the historic environment”) starts on Wednesday in Glasgow, the very place where the “metal detecting is a matter of morality” issue was flagged up. As a result we’re perfectly entitled to fantasise, nay ask, that the event kicks off with an emergency resolution…..
If the timescale proves too tight perhaps other events could address the issue? Next month Egham Museum is holding what looks like a fascinating one day “Collections and Identity Conference” which would surely be ideal, especially as one of the themes is “What do objects tell us about their collectors”.
Failing those two, surely some archaeologists, curators or academics will address the subject very soon? Won’t they?
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
50 comments
06/04/2014 at 09:24
Peter
Your raving bonkers etc etc . [Edited]
06/04/2014 at 09:37
heritageaction
Peter, we’ve told you and told you:
No support for statutory regulation to ensure the activity fully benefits the public interest, no soapbox here.
We do note with satisfaction though that every time we make a really good point you pop up with a crude insult. You’re like litmus paper.
06/04/2014 at 09:39
calmgrove
Fingers crossed this represents a sea change.
06/04/2014 at 20:45
responsible detectorist
What you said seems reasonable ie good to record your finds. I fear that many detectorists just read these sort of posts as if you’re trying to send us all to hell and therefore come up with ranty replies that make them look even worse. ho hum.
07/04/2014 at 06:33
heritageaction
Quite. Some people react badly to a “reasonable” request that all detectorists should report all their finds whereas others of them think the request is “reasonable”. What lessons should society draw from that?!
07/04/2014 at 10:03
detectorbloke
Well I guess it’s rather representative of society as whole, good and bad eggs.
07/04/2014 at 10:16
heritageaction
If that’s so then the question naturally arises: what should society do about it’s bad eggs?
Spend one and a half decades asking them to voluntary become good eggs while never once saying being a bad egg is morally wrong??
And then when the one and a half decades is over and a lot of the bad eggs haven’t changed their ways, say OK we’ll give you another 15 years?
Do you think that the taxpayer, if he knew that was the reality, would think that was value for money when the rest of the heritage sector, full to the brim with good eggs, is utterly skint?
07/04/2014 at 12:14
Andy Baines
I think the obvious thing that needs to be put in place is compulsory recording of finds. If people are given the option to be lazy they will usually take that option, its just the way people are, always taking the easy option. If that option is taken away and people now find themselves in breach of the law they turn from being immoral and lazy to criminal. Problem solved.
07/04/2014 at 15:17
detectorbloke
I’m not sure re criminalization. I think it would be hideous to enforce and is based on the presumption that, amoungst other things, you can accurately date everything 300 years or older.
As to what it should do. Tricky one of course. Perhaps to continue to educate in a more effective thought out way. Increase the capacity to record (one would think FLO’s aren’t that enthuasiasitc about spreading the good word with a relative increase in their recording workload). Properly punish the illegal detectorists.
If i was the taxpayer I would think would I get more value for money if it was spent elsewhere. If so do you a) let detecting carry on with no PAS relying on the good eggs in the heritage sector to educate the detectorists or b) ban metal detecting and pay to try and enforce it.
Perhaps detecting is like alcohol, it can have its benefits but there will always be people that get too pissed no matter how much you tell them to stop and it’s just never going to be banned.
07/04/2014 at 15:43
heritageaction
Why would it be hideous to enforce? That’s the threat made by potential non-reporters, not reporters or potential reporters. It’s a silly, empty threat that PAS should be laughing at not repeating.
No-one is saying let’s hang people who misjudge by ten years (or fifty). But the Treasure Act expects people to make a fair, honest stab at what’s Treasure and what isn’t. It works OK and no-one is persecuted for marginal errors.
“Perhaps to continue to educate”. No thanks, I’ve paid enough for that. PAS has run into a reality they were always going to: the (large) rump who have no wish to co-operate. You know that, you’ve seen them. Join Central Searchers and read their rules if you think the rump can be persuaded to behave.
07/04/2014 at 20:20
responsible detectorist
I guess having been involved with giving legal advice for many years I’m hesitant when it comes to new laws.
Call it immoral, irresponsible, but like drinking too much not illegal. Would it be metal only and if so why? If a 16 year old found an old bit of pottery whilst walking over a field would they be prosecuted for not handing it in for recording?
What would the punishment be, would it be on a par with the Treasure Act? Who would prosecute? The coroner, the PAS, the Local Authority, The Police (but then is it a criminal offence as well?). Hard enough to get anyone interested if someone steals your phone let alone not reporting a 301 year old buckle.
I don’t expect answers but I just don’t like using the law to solve problems. It’s too blunt an object which doesn’t always work very well.
So if we don’t continue to educate what do we do?
07/04/2014 at 20:59
heritageaction
Drinking too much may be merely immoral or irresponsible but when it directly harms others, it’s illegal or legally regulated, and quite right. What’s wrong with that? Why should you deny society the right to protect itself by law from damage by artefact hunters, just as it does in all other areas?
As for the details, you make it sound as if it is a blue sky notion that can’t be actioned because of the practicalities. Yet legal regulation of metal detecting is the norm worldwide. Britain’s laissez faire regime is a complete aberration that no country has sought to emulate, for obvious but officially unacknowledged reasons.
” It’s too blunt an object which doesn’t always work very well.”
So is a metal detector. No-one should be out in society’s back yard with one unless they are obliged, not asked, to keep to society’s rules. By what right should anyone claim otherwise?
07/04/2014 at 21:57
responsible detectorist
i don’t agree that drinking is legally regulated or made illegal when it directly harm others. One example, How many stories have you heard of a parent being a drinker and making their child’s life a misery by putting them down / not loving them? Not breaking any laws there but still directly harming them.
Anyway analogies aside I don’t object to it being made illegal in theory. Wouldn’t affect me, hopefully! But due the practical difficulties and perhaps cost implications I like to think about other alternatives, of which as you say there may be none.
07/04/2014 at 23:00
heritageaction
” I don’t object to it being made illegal in theory. Wouldn’t affect me”
Precisely! You have nothing to lose from having what you do already as a matter of conscience being made compulsory. You wouldn’t even notice a difference. The only people who would be adversely affected are the antisocial oiks who don’t do it and would be forced to. Show me a detectorist who bleats on about the importance of the voluntary system and the rights of a free born Englishman and I’ll show you a prat who doesn’t show all his recordable finds to PAS!
05/06/2014 at 21:50
Ian Cole
The main problem os with the FLO’s them selves. When recorded items are not returneed , do not appear on the PAS site for years. Treasure cases sit unsubmitted in FLO’s offices. FLO does not return phone calls, emails , even after numerous requests. Why should detectorists waste time tring to record finds if they are treated as some kind sub human species by the very people employed to record finds. A viscous circle is now enveloping the whole scheme – I dont record because the FLO doesnt record ! I suggest you look closer to home for reasons that detectorists dont or cant be bothered to record..
05/06/2014 at 21:58
heritageaction
The article is about the simple proposition that wantonly not reporting finds is immoral. Blaming others, or circumstances or the cost of bus fares doesn’t render it untrue.
05/06/2014 at 22:20
Ian Cole
If you had bothered to read my comment. I agree that all finds should be recorded but the whole scheme fails apart when Finds Liason Officers do not do their job as first contact recorders . I have a treasure case that was submitted last July and the BM have no details of it . Who is failing in their responsabilities in this case then ?
05/06/2014 at 22:31
heritageaction
All detectorists defend the behaviour of the irresponsible majority by claiming “not me, not me”. It’s no defence.
I don’t care what defects there are in the PAS system, real, unreal or exaggerated, most detectorists don’t report most of what they find because they’re intellectual oiks, not because they can’t. Coming onto a conservation website to tell us the mass information theft that your colleagues are guilty of is down to the FLOs is a massive joke.
“I have a treasure case that was submitted last July and the BM have no details of it .”
Oh diddums. Take it to a museum and donate it to them. Problem solved. Or is that too complicated?
05/06/2014 at 23:14
Ian Cole
I DO NOT AND WILL NOT DEFEND the lesser responsible members of the detecting community. .
I dont quite understand the term “colleagues” This is an insular hobby and I do it alone.
Calling the uniformed oiks is total elitism No one was born fully formed or are you a minority of 1 . Most hard working detectorists are normal people that have either been too busy earning a living or not have had the privileged background you obviously have, to have gone into academia from a young age.” Is it not more of merit to a man to rise from his knees and look into the light of understanding, than to continually gaze apon the ground of ignorance”
Take off your blinkers you ignorant arrogant gobshite
05/06/2014 at 23:30
heritageaction
“Calling the uniformed oiks is total elitism”
No,they are NOT uninformed. I and other taxpayers have spent many millions “informing” them and they have ignored it.
No, what I said was that they are intellectual oiks. Which they are. There’s no excuse for concealing and destroying everyone elses history.
As for me being “an ignorant arrogant gobshite” it’s not me that is spraying such words around in order to avoid confronting and admitting that yes, actually, I would be better donating that treasure item to a museum rather than whining about the time it is taking to give me a reward.
It’s you.
But thanks for dropping by.
06/06/2014 at 09:21
Ian Cole
“Oh diddums. Take it to a museum and donate it to them. Problem solved. Or is that too complicated?”
Because according to the 1996 treasure act Section 8 . 21
if I did I would be commiting an offence. All treasure when realised HAS TO BE REPORTED TO THE CORONOR of the district the object was found within 24 days.
06/06/2014 at 09:38
heritageaction
And yet you didn’t attach a note to it saying saying you didn’t want a reward?
Do it now, today, send them a note. You’ll find the procedure will be much smoother and you’ll have no reason to blame the system in the self-seeking, pseudo-virtuous way you have.
Hopefully, your next message here will contain a copy of that note with full details. (Not hopefully. It WILL. This is a conservation website. You have plenty of detecting forums on which to complain about the world’s most detector friendly Government and it’s facilities for the world’s most privileged detectorists. Go to them.)
06/06/2014 at 13:27
heritageaction
Still waiting.
(No, your new claim that “I can not disclaim it yet as the item has not reached this point in the proceedure” doesn’t prevent you doing it, as everyone knows.)
06/06/2014 at 13:50
Ian Cole
Ian Cole
If you cant be bothered to show my comprehensive reply to your last statement, in which I stated the obstacles faced by the general public in recording finds and you prefer to pick a sentance out of context, I challenge your intellect.
This is the behaviour of gutter press tabloid journalism and shows you to be a fascist bigot and that no one elses opinion is of any consequence.
You did not state that I have said, I DO DONATE MY FINDS and assist in digs voluntaraly.
DO NOT EDIT THEN CRITICISE OUT OF CONTEXT MORON.
in the words of the great Barry Cryer, you sir are an ignoranus !
06/06/2014 at 14:19
heritageaction
“This is the behaviour of gutter press tabloid journalism….”
Blimey! Fine, insult us all you like so long as you now realise the FLOs are not to blame for non-recording and the law is not to blame for your failure to give up a reward.
06/06/2014 at 17:07
J D Reeves
I am following this conversation and think that Mr Cole has a serious point about problems recording objects. Why are you fixated with his treasure reward ?
Let me tell you that both finder AND landowner must be in agreement before this can happen.
I eagerly await your response
06/06/2014 at 17:31
heritageaction
Saying you agree with him that detectorists can’t record because of the FLOs doesn’t make it so, it merely repeats the nonsense. Tens of thousands of amateur archaeologists record everything without difficulty, without complaint, without criticism, without inaccuracy and without 60% failing to do so. How do you and he explain that? Diddums, the poor detectorists can’t work out how to record because the nasty FLO prevents them. See how ludicrous the claim is to people outside detecting forums?
As for being obsessed with his treasure reward, no, I simply noticed how inappropriate it was to complain about the Treasure system if you’re going to get a handout from the taxpayer. Let him just hand his find over with a note saying I want no share of it – then he’ll have no cause for complaint about the system will he? But no, he’s used every trick in the book, including abuse, to avoid agreeing he could do it. Plus ca change in detecting world. Too much talking, not enough doing right by the community.
06/06/2014 at 18:18
J D Reeves
Apart from the self record system for PAS discounting city museums / universities what other options are there for amateur recorders.
The PAS is and always will be the 1st POC
You have also not answered my comment that BOTH landowner & finder have an agreement regarding TC’s. He as finder can waive any reward but if LO doesn’t, the item has to go through VAC before it gets to a museum
06/06/2014 at 18:23
heritageaction
“He as finder can waive any reward”.
Thank you. That’s the point, but he wriggled and wriggled and finally lapsed into crude abuse to avoid saying so.
07/06/2014 at 09:48
Ian Cole
You havnt mentioned that I did say it was a ring FRAGMENT 3 gram of scrap silver approx value £1. why get so het up about such a small. amount Your ingnorance about treasure procedure is blaitantly obvious. Please do not make judgements on what you dont know. Also I see you have not enlighted us on the atlernative ways on how to record objects.
07/06/2014 at 09:52
Ian Cole
You havnt mentioned that I did say it was a ring FRAGMENT 3 gram of scrap silver approx value £1. why get so het up about such a small amount which will be returned to me after recording. I observed the letter of the law in presenting a potential treasure object ( read the act for description )Your ignorance about treasure procedure is blaitantly obvious. Please do not make judgements on what you dont know. Also I see you have not enlighted us on the alternative ways on how to record objects.
07/06/2014 at 10:18
heritageaction
Oh dear, now it’s not the fault of the FLOs or the system or the law. Now we’re now told, late in the day, your Treasure reward (half of £1) is too small for you have told them you don’t want it and THAT’s why you haven’t sent that note disclaiming it!!!
It’s just laughable. You could make a suit out of your tangled web.
07/06/2014 at 11:11
Ian Cole
You need an electrician pal
YOU AINT WIRED UP RIGHT
07/06/2014 at 11:20
Pat
I think that’s probably enough from Mr Cole. He appears to have two complaints –
1. Non recording is mainly due to the FLOs themselves..
2. His Treasure item worth one pound hasn’t been dealt with for 11 months
Grrr. The deluded sense of entitlement from some detectorists is staggering (and saying we are morons and elitist ignorant arrogant gobshites doesn’t exactly convince me that he’s telling the truth about being a “responsible detectorist” either).
07/06/2014 at 11:25
Pat
“You need an electrician pal
YOU AINT WIRED UP RIGHT”
Definitely not convinced.
07/06/2014 at 12:04
Ian Cole
“and saying we are morons and elitist ignorant arrogant gobshites doesn’t exactly convince me that he’s telling the truth about being a “responsible detectorist” either”
i HAVNT STATED i AM A DETECTORIST.
All my finds are from field walking.
and why havnt you included ALL content I have sent ?
This site is so biased it doesnt have any credible justification,
And still you havnt answered the numerous questions about public recording options
07/06/2014 at 12:19
Nigel S
“i HAVNT STATED i AM A DETECTORIST.
All my finds are from field walking.”
Whoops! …..
“I DO NOT AND WILL NOT DEFEND the lesser responsible members of the detecting community. .
I dont quite understand the term “colleagues” This is an insular hobby and I do it alone.”
07/06/2014 at 14:35
Martin
Stop assasinating the guy and answer his bloody question!
07/06/2014 at 14:59
heritageaction
I rather think it was he that repeatedly made him look foolish and dishonest, no-one else.
As for the question, what alternative recording avenues do detectorists have, as everyone knows, there are many. However I don’t propose to dignify the nonsense about “it’s the fault of the law and the FLOs we don’t report” by discussing them.
If PAS wants people to stop showing them finds they’ll say so but until then, since the taxpayer has paid millions to set up PAS, let detectorists show them their finds. No, not the 30% who already do so, the 70% who don’t – and find endless stupid excuses, as have been exhibited here.
07/06/2014 at 15:13
Paul Barford
“whoops!”
“The deluded sense of entitlement”
I think there is nothing more deluded than a sock puppet who is sure he’s making sense.
Abusive time waster, nothing else.
07/06/2014 at 15:28
Nigel S
Yep, and with multiple manifestations. Sand for brains. I used to be patient but after the first few years when you can recite and demolish every ponderously made false claim off by heart it becomes hard. I must say though, blaming the system that keeps them from going to jail for the fact most of them don’t co-operate with the system that keeps them from going to jail is particularly irritating. Is there a hobby that’s more mollycoddled, more fortunate, less co-operative and more downright stupid? I doubt it. Not until they start subsidising egg collecting and sale.
07/06/2014 at 15:34
Jeremy
“what alternative recording avenues do detectorists have, as everyone knows, there are many.”
And they are ?
07/06/2014 at 15:52
heritageaction
Right on time Paul, confirmation of what we both said.
(“Jeremy” is Mr Cole!)
07/06/2014 at 17:11
Jeremy
?
07/06/2014 at 17:12
Ian
What a load of old bollocks
I POSTED A SERIOUS COMMENT ABOUT RECORDING
IF YOU HAD PUT HALF OF MY COMMENTS ON HERE
INSTEAD OF EDITING THEM TO FIT YOUR POISONOUS AGENDA
YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES
THIS IS NOT A SERIOUS HERITAGE INFORMATION SITE
YOU ARE JUST A BUNCH OF SAD OLD TWISTED INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE BITTER BECAUSE THE WORLD WONT DANCE TO THEIR TUNE
HURRY UP AND DIE AND DO HUMANITY A FAVOUR
NOW POST THIS YOU TWISTED VISCOUS CUNT
07/06/2014 at 18:10
Andy Baines
Being a metal detectorist myself, Ian is one of the detectorists I distance myself from. What a way to show yourself up in a public arena.
Ian you have just made yourself look a complete doughnut and now given the critics the fodder they need. For anyone reading this please note we are not all like this.
07/06/2014 at 18:23
Phil J
Go tiger you tell em
This nation is commerating the 70th anniversary of a battle that not only defined our present society but also the end of political censorship of the individual
If his statement is true. Should this moderator be ashamed in their vanity editing.
We may disagree with matal detecting but this kind of behaiviour has no place here
07/06/2014 at 18:40
heritageaction
Nothing was “edited to fit our agenda”, we chose not to publish 2 repetitious and offensive postings but Mr Cole has been allowed to make his views very clear, using at least two identities and some awful language, so your criticism is groundless. No-one can be any doubt about what sort of views he holds and that wouldn’t be the case if you were right, which a moment’s reflection would have convinced you about.
07/06/2014 at 18:55
Nigel S
For anyone reading this please note we are not all like this.
We never, ever said you were Andy. But there are a lot like him (you should see the stuff we don’t publish) and most detectorists don’t report, so damage history.
Our one and only problem is the rest – the ones who know it but who won’t walk away from the others and won’t call for regulation.
PS Mr Cole has sent yet another comment saying it’s lies. But he won’t be coming back. It’s a nice evening, perhaps he’ll have time to go out in Herefordshire and indulge in his claimed hobby of “field walking”! 😉
07/06/2014 at 19:16
heritageaction
Comments closed.