So how is one to intelligently weigh the importance of Mr. Barford's assessment of the importance of context as opposed to Dr. Bland's assessment? That has to begin with understanding the qualifications and expertise of each archaeologist. Dr. Bland holds an important position and has done extensive field work relating to coin discoveries and other detectorist finds. There is nothing in Mr. Barford's account of his career that throws any light at all on his qualifications to accurately judge the importance of context.But then is it true that just Mr Barford considers that archaeological context is important and does Roger Bland actually consider that archaeological context is unimportant? Given the fact that he is so frequently quoted (or misquoted) to support no-questions-asked collecting by his numismatic "friends" US dugup coin collectors and dealers, perhaps it is time for the Head of the Portable Antiquities Scheme to make his opinions on this clearer.
Perhaps also Mr Welsh would like to give an opinion on the minimum qualifications needed to be able to assess whether archaeological context is or is not important.
See also from "professional" numismatist Welsh:
Looting: The Essence of the Lie
Barford: Prince of the Liars
An all time low ("Rabid anticollecting archaeologist-blogger Paul Barford...")
Barford and Torquemada
New Year's Resolutions .
For someone with allegedly now "no qualifications" to discuss this, I certainly do seem to merit quite a lot of this guy's attention. What is behind this?