From Bognor Regis just along the pebbly coast from Candice Jarman comes a comment on a text I posted here at the beginning of the year: Mr barford, I think being a single minded archy seems to suit you lot down to the ground, you knock the detectorists, forgeting that you need us so that you can fo your bit. Also before slandering me personally and the club - at least have the decency to contact me. I will sekk legal advice if you do not apologise or remove my name grom this article within 24hrs of this reply. Andy paxfordThough I have no idea what the verb "fo your bit" means, frankly I very much doubt that I or world archaeology needs artefact hunters to achieve it, or that the archaeological record can sustain the process. If combating the process of erosion of the archaeological record at the hands of these people and those that support them requires a bit of single-minded application of logic to the arguments of the pro-looting, pro-collecting and pro-illegal-export brigade, then this blogger is all for it. There is too much woolly-headed thinking attached to the pro-detecting arguments in the UK.
Let it be noted that Mr Paxman not only does not want his name to be associated with artefact hunting and collecting, but also did not see fit to add the PAS or the Code of Practice to his group's website before writing to me. Let it be also noted that instead of actually engaging the issues raised, Paxman opts to threaten me with legal action for mentioning them. This is of course quite typical, in order to avoid addressing points such as these, UK detectorists prefer (like US coineys) to shut part of their discussions away from the view of the main stakeholders in the heritage, the wider public. If what they are doing is discussed in a public place (such as this tiny corner of the blogosphere) then out come the threats.
Mr Paxford, when is the time for bringing out the cogent arguments?