The IAPN Get What they Pay For...

With reference to the post by Professor David Gill writes about 'Material from controlled archaeological excavation changing the character of the PAS database' and mine ('PAS loses Direction'). Once again, we find from the reaction to this post over there that dullard American collectors have the utmost difficulty of understanding even such a simple concept as who runs the PAS and what for! Duh, it's not rocket science. Anyway if you are an internet nobody with an Alexa rating of 14,9 million (mine is 4,3 million), I guess nobody needs take any interest in what you and your metal detecting BFFs think or say. What makes so many collectors behave as though they are totally thick? Are they seeking sympathy, or just trying to annoy? Either way, they do the hobbies they represent no credit at all.

Sock Puppet Digs Deeper in

"I is archeologist"

"Anonymous"  23 December 2014 at 17:54 wrote:

I am an Archeologist ( shock horror ) and i was invited to join two local detectorists on a dig one day , the one thing that i was impressed with was the accuracy of their machines and also the accuracy of their recording [...].

I suggested ('Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Spot the Sock-Puppet', PACHI Wednesday, 24 December 2014) that the strange wording indicated that this was a metal detectorist pretending to be an archaeologist and the "two local detectorists' were a fiction. We are told: "The poor man needs serious help he questions as to if i am an Archeologist or not without even knowing me. Does he think we are all private school educated?" The issue was something else however. Then he blurts out "Yes i did misspell it that was on purpose to see what sort of a reply i would get [on a metal detecting blog] (Archaeologist) I trained at UEA University of East Anglia". That'd be this course then? Interestingly, the PAS does not show any Roman site with more than two pieces of lead recorded in the whole of the "local' (East Anglia) region, so where are these two artefact hunters allegedly based?

Metal Detectorists Getting Nowhere with Misrepresentation

Over on the Stout Standards (sic) blog the dynamic duo of transatlantic detecting ambassadorship are really letting their hair down and laying into conservation group Heritage Action. In the course of which they decide to refer to something I said:

Golly! Gosh! Many Anglo-Saxon and Bronze Age features, eh? Hmmm. The deluge continued, but the gobby, self-styled expert, Paul Barford, seems to have put a damper on things if his recent comment that, “digging up “such stuff is not what archaeology is primarily about,” is to be believed.

No link is given, so the reader is left in the dark about the context of that  remark (since when has context interested an antiquity collector?). I was referring there to the issue of hoiking out hoards and losing their context as opposed to preserving them within the archaeological record. The quotation comes from ' Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Bedale Logic Fail' PACHI Monday, 15 December 2014, though I see logic is still failing to make any headway in detecting circles.

As one can see in the case of the discussion of rescue excavations carried out in advance of housing development. Mr Howland deduces

If as he claims that, “an archaeology dig is by its nature destructive” then there is a strong case some might feel, for not doing the excavation in the first place.

Ummmm....

How to Become a "Cultural Property Observer"

Becoming a "Cultural property Observer" is not really all that difficult. Just follow these easy steps and you'll be well away.

1) Empty your mind of rationality and heart of fairness. You don't need them in this task.

2) Start with the word: "Archaeoblogger...." and then add a name. Any one will do, they can all be treated as enemies.

3) then select a target group, archaeologists (archaeobloggers) for example, or a person (Zahi Hawasssss) or country (select from list of states with whom the US has signed cultural property MOUs + Egypt).

4) Find some piece of scandal about one of the three (group, person or country) from the local scandal rags, the more obscure a reference the better.

5) Say something ridiculous linking points 2 to 4, bearing little real relationship to what the person allegedly quoted would recognize as what they actually said - the more bizarre the better as it attracts attention. If you can goad your victim into replying they'll supply readers with yet another link to your blog.

5) Then slip in a few gratuitous links to two of your own posts - not necessarily related to the subject of points 4 or 5.

6) Keep it short, don't be tempted to justify what you just said or develop a theme more than superficially. You are "Cultural Property Observer". Your audience needs short, simple texts of eight sentences or less. They cannot cope with more. 

7) Post it and sit back and wait for the foul mouthed metal detectorist to add his "warm wishes from England" or the grousy old ("Arthur Houghton asked me to post this") sock-puppet to add his own brand of supercilious nastiness. They will.

8) Sit back and wait for the cheque.