Monday, 16 May 2011

Andy Paxford the Bognor Metal Detectorist: "You Need us so that You Can Fo Your Bit"

.
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 paxford
Though 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 Paxford 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, Paxford 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?

6 comments:

40something said...

No, "detectorists" don't do their bit: it's not archaeological surveying, but object-lust driving destructive mining of sites for specific artifacts.

If you care about the past, there are ways of finding about it-- hands on, too. But not metal detectoring.

Paul Barford said...

Careful, or Mr Paxford will be sekking legil advise to see if he can do you for 'slander' too.

Ah I see, "do" their bit, d is next to f on the keyboard. I thought it was a truncated word and was trying to work out what the missing verb was. Forge, foster, forget, foment, fornicate...

Paul Barford said...

"Object lust" - you've been reading the post about Chasing Aphrodite !! But I'm bagging that for the title of my next book on artefact collecting, OK?

40something said...

Yep.

Andy paxford said...

Well well, again you chose to use my name in a manner to try and discredit me haha
First off - under the rules of FID and NCMD the declaration of treasure and the treasure act 1996 are clear to all members.
Secondly the Finds liason officer was present at ALL club meetings.
Thirdly, Detectorists finds that are declared DO assist with archaeology whether you like it or not - some of these finds have lead to important and significant archaeological finds

Finally - seeing as you are more hung up on typos rather than fact - at least spell my name correctly :)

Paul Barford said...

I rather think you do yourself very little credit. This "Code" I was talking about, ask your FLO why that is more than just "declaration of treasure and the treasure act 1996", OK? It's their job to explain it to "finders" like yourself.

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.