Now it’s ‘fake science’
The more dedicated purveyors of ‘fake’ news in the anti-collecting/detecting camp got a sharp shock by a damming report from the influential US Committee for Cultural Policy (CfCP), the content of which reinforces the facts that dealers and collectors are not the heritage villains some in the heritage circus working to private anti-collecting agendas would have the world believe. Now the rabble-rousing street-corner vendors have moved on to ‘fake’ or ‘bogus’ science, led by a couple of loutish, anti-metal detecting know-nothings, in what bears all the hallmarks of a face-saving exercise to breathe life into the corpse of conjecture (read here, fake science).
The CfCP’s report, ‘Bearing False Witness: The Media, ISIS and Antiquities’, (https://committeeforculturalpolicy.org/…/CCP-Bearing-False-Witness-The-Media-ISIS…) exposes the trickery the heritage circus’ self-anointed commissars use in trying to prove a negative.
However, when it comes to the same old guessing game about the ersatz threat posed to the heritage by the hobby of metal-detecting, the ‘paper’ [i] “Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property: Estimation of the scale and intensity of metal detecting and the quantity of metal-detected cultural goods,” is in a class of its own.
The more astute will have noticed – in the title – the word ‘Estimation.’ It’s conspicuous in this rambling and somewhat pompous, “open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property,” rendering it an utterly worthless piece of anti-metal detecting propaganda that to my mind, shames heritologists everywhere if it’s intended as an example of scholarly research. It appears to me at least, this derisory ‘paper’ is either a window dressing exercise in cynicism or it’s a masterpiece of incompetence.
I invite you to read it and compare its estimated figures to the official figures of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS). Manifestly, it falls headlong into the elephant trap that is the Artefact Erosion Counter (AEC), as did the Council for British Archaeology (CBA), who also gave this baloney it’s tacit approval. The widely mocked and totally discredited AEC is arguably the most derisory cock-and-bull archaeological testimony ever foisted on an unsuspecting public since the Piltdown Man debacle.
In its opening paragraphs, the ‘paper’ unintentionally destroys outright, the AEC’s claims and accuracy: “We do not even know “fundamental information” about its practice [metal detecting. JH] as a legal hobby, such as “how many people actively metal detect, or how often, and we do not know exactly what they find.” The genie is out of the bottle.
But the elephant in the archaeological room is the inescapable question: “What reliance can anyone place on anything from an archaeological source, if one is to be certain that it’s not guesstimation?” Er…not much it seems.
“Narcissism falls along the axis of what psychologists call personality disorders, one of a group that includes antisocial, dependent, histrionic, avoidant and borderline personalities. But by most measures, narcissism is one of the worst, if only because the narcissists themselves are so clueless.” – Jeffrey Kluger