I was gratified by the number of people and institutions who wrote asking for invitations to read this blog while it was "author only" (that's what it should have said) and offered its author messages of support. Thanks very much to all those people. Concerned heritage organization Heritage Action (on whose forums aggressive and disruptive behaviour of metal detectorists and their supporters is no novelty either) helped out by hosting a text by me explaining why this blog was offline and pointing out in no uncertain terms why this sort of thing matters. I am grateful to them for this gesture of goodwill and support. Thanks also to Meg Lambert over in the US for recognising that problem with antisocial metal detectorists is no different from any of the other conflicts of interest in the 'scary' world of portable antiquities ruffianship.I have now decided to re-open access to this blog to all interested (on both sides of the collecting 'fence'). The whole point of a public debate is that it should be public. If artefact hunters (so-called "metal detectorists") in the UK object to that, that's just their tough luck. There is absolutely nothing to stop them producing their own open-access blogs and websites, commenting on and debating points made, articulating their counterarguments and addressing the issues raised in texts like the ones I write here. That is something that to this day is wholly lacking from this milieu. In my view crude thuggish attempts simply to silence an ongoing debate about what is after all the common archaeological heritage by making threats and by the sort of pathetic 'anti-blogging' we have seen until now, is nothing but an immense and very public signal of the intellectual bankruptcy of the artefact hunting and collecting "cause".
To judge from the reaction on some metal detecting forums (like the Detecting Wales discussion list which you can see without registering to get access to closed access areas) artefact hunters in the UK were delighted that "the Barford Slayer" (sic) among them had managed to - as he put it - "put an end to Paul Barford and his anti detecting blogs" by resorting to enlisting local low-life to threaten his family. There has been almost universal approval in the milieu of the actions of the person concerned and by extension the crude 'methods' applied. I think many "metal detectorists " in the UK are only too aware of the "Portable Antiquities Scam" currently being perpetrated on British public opinion. That is, the huge holes in the arguments put forward by the supporters of the hobby of so-called "metal detecting" and the degree to which the flimsy façade of "responsibility" and alleged "benefits" for archaeology is based on wholly questionable premises as the foundation. Tragically for the archaeological record of Britain, the number of people actually questioning these premises is still relatively small. This is partly as a result of the sort of aggression and unpleasantness (including threats) that tends to be directed at their authors (even on 'academic' discussion lists such as the JISC-run Britarch discussion list of the Council for British Archaeology, and before this forced its closure, the Portable Antiquities Scheme's own public-access forum).
This has to change and there has to be more transparency about what these people are doing to the archaeological heritage in which not only archaeologists and collectors are the only stakeholders, but - primarily - the whole of society (and internationally). The conservation policies of English Heritage on sustainable management of the historic environment (download here) state clearly that the issues concerning conservation of the cultural heritage should be a matter of open debate and consultation. This is quite patently not happening in the case of portable antiquities issues. This may be very comfortable for the artefact hunter and procurer, it may be comfortable for the dealers and buyers, but all the time this is going on, the evidence we have indicates that the long-term survival and integrity of the archaeological record which we aim to protect is being severely compromised.
Since the metal detectorists of the United Kingdom with few exceptions failed to speak out against the attempt to frighten the author into silence - giving the impression at least that they were solidly behind it - this seems a good time to summarise some of the problems the milieu does not want talked about. I intend to make the next fortnight on this blog - "Scrutiny of English Metal Detecting Fortnight" with a series of posts summarising the chief problems with current English policy on the hunting and collecting of freshly dugup artefacts from archaeological sites and lifted out of the archaeological record.
In response to the sense of entitlement expressed in the all-too-public jubilation of 1000+ Welsh "detectorists" over on their forum at the news that a critic had been crudely silenced, and in the light of current ongoing political events over in Wales, I have started a separate blog:
'Na i PAS ar gyfer Cymru: No to a Welsh PAS'This looks more carefully at what the Welsh artefact hunters in particular have to hide. In it I put forward the argument that the existence of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, an organization which is a "partner" to these artefact hunters, is to a great degree sheltering some extremely disturbing features from deserved public scrutiny. The archaeological record belongs to us all and not a minority of individuals with metal detectors who claim absolute entitlement to take what they want from it and do what they want ("it's legal innit?"). I present a number of cogent arguments for wider debate concerning the total scrapping of the Welsh PAS in order to bring out into the open the issue of what should be done about the damage caused to the archaeological record by "metal detectorists". Maybe English lawmakers will eventually draw a more logical conclusion about the need to do something about the 'hidden hobby' than to simply pat a few of the collectors on the head and throw millions of pounds at a Scheme-facade in a pretence that the problem is in some way dealt with. It is not.
In case anyone is wondering, though I did from other archaeological bodies in the UK , it was notable - though not unexpected - that I did not get a single message of support from the fifty or so fellow archaeologists working in "Britain's largest archaeological (sic) outreach" organization whose job it actually is to be conducting public outreach on the portable antiquity issues which I cover in this blog. Perhaps, like their "partners" the so-called "metal detectorists", Bloomsbury was only too happy at the apparent closing down of another venue of open public debate about portable antiquities and heritage issues.
UPDATE 11th October 2011: It seems "Detecting Wales" have decided they do have something to hide after all: access to the page about the Welsh detectorists' reaction to "Steve the Barford Slayer's" discussion-stifling "achievements" now seems to have been deleted or blocked. It must be so awkward being part of a hobby where you can't allow outsiders to actually see what members write because it would show that the hobby is not at all what your propagandists would like people to believe about it. More transparency and honesty with the general public please.
Vignette: The 'Guennol' Lioness and I have some loose ends to tie up.
Pleased to see you back, let's hope nothing happens that causes you go off line again.
ReplyDeleteThanks Geoff, let's see how long it takes to build the readership up to its earlier levels - or even beyond. Spread the word.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to see that you have now been able to reopen your blog, and I wish you the best of success in resolving the issues that led you to privatize it.
ReplyDeleteNo one in the coin collecting community had anything to do with this attempt to silence you. There has been concern about freedom of speech issues, and also what many in our community view as the distasteful methods employed by your adversaries.
Dave Welsh
Classical Coins
www.classicalcoins.com
service@classicalcoins.com
Thanks, Dave.
ReplyDeleteBut coin collectors still buy coins found by guys like this with their metal-detectors don't they? Just whom are collectors consorting with?
Yes, it was noticed that the coin collectors were not behind this, they on the other hand attempt to silence critics in their midst by banning them from their discussion lists for no stated reason (Moneta-L for starters), don't they? Nathan Elkins was "perfectly free" to say what he liked too, wasn't he? No pressure at all was applied to him from ACCG-related circles was it?
There is no "concern with freedom of speech", freedom of speech exists in all our countries, it's a matter of exercising it and others respecting it and the need for transparency.
Paul,
ReplyDelete> ... coin collectors still buy coins found by guys like this with their metal-detectors don't they?
Not intentionally. They don't buy them from detectorists (at least not often), and most collectors I know would be very glad to know which coins have been illicitly excavated by detectorists, so that they can avoid them. The problem is that there is presently no viable system for recording provenance and conveying it to a coin's buyer and its future owners (I am working on a concept for doing that).
> Yes, it was noticed that the coin collectors were not behind this, they on the other hand attempt to silence critics in their midst by banning them from their discussion lists for no stated reason (Moneta-L for starters), don't they?
As I have consistently advocated that Moneta-L and AncientArtifacts administrators should allow you to return to these lists, I can answer this with some authority.
In a message to AncientArtifacts, the listowner did state a reason for excluding you:
"The problem was not Paul Barford's point of view, but the egregious manner in which he stated it, the effect which his presence was having on the freedom of speech of other group members and the normal functioning of the group. By the time I booted him I was really left with no alternative, other than to fold the group."
Much the same sort of statement came in a private communication that I received from a moderator of Moneta-L.
After my latest request for your reinstatement to these groups, there was intense discussion in both lists. It became clear that listmembers would not welcome this, because they believed you would attempt to "hijack" these lists and induce them to focus on your theme - protecting the archaeological resource from looting, which you believe is caused by collecting unprovenanced portable antiquities such as ancient coins.
A similar discussion ensued in Unidroit-L (of which I am the listowner). You do have the right to participate in this list, but have not chosen to do so because the listmembers do not want that list to become a venue for carrying on your crusade against collecting unprovenanced portable antiquities.
In my view, online discussion groups by their nature resist being focused upon any single theme and being dominated by any one individual. A blog is a far more suitable venue for your purposes.
Dave Welsh
Classical Coins
www.classicalcoins.com
service@classicalcoins.com
This is getting further from the topic, but this deserves an answer.
ReplyDelete1) As for collectors not buying objects found by people using metal detectors, I was forgetting about the “coin elves” and that they fall from the sky.
2) AncientArtifacts, is allegedly devoted to “responsible collecting” and my guess is that Moneta-L would make the same claim (how could they otherwise?). Therefore the theme of “protecting the archaeological resource from looting” is among the others there a perfectly valid topic on such a list – IF it really IS such a list - is it not?
Now I really resent the comment about the way I presented my views on the above-mentioned lists. The language I used on those moderated lists was perfectly civil and moderate, which is more than can be said for that of other members:
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/03/thuggish-culture-of-collectors.html
"Hateful posts go back to beginnings of group" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53796
I never said anything to or about your Unidroit-L members Dr Assar or De La Fe which was in any way comparable to what you allowed them to say about me there (just take a look at that last thread http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/message/3820 – obviously largely encouraged by your own attitude expressed by cross-posting to the list from your blog “Prince of darkness”, “taken leave of his senses” etc etc)
[to be continued]
[contd.]
ReplyDeleteI do not see that Haines (a moderator is he not?) can claim that in any way what I SAID was
having an effect “on the freedom of speech of other group members”. Well, I suppose that might depend on what they wanted to say on a "responsible collectors’ discussion list" about what they’d just bought, sold, put on eBay, doesn't it? Easier to say some things when the critics of irresponsible dealings are not watching, isn't it? Is that the kind of "freedom of speech" the list moderator wants to protect? So, in other words, stifling discussion and debate, restricting transparency.
In general though I tended to put my reflections and reservations on such topics out of the way over here on my blog – and it is my recollection that this was a problem for those “responsible collectors” too. There’s no pleasing some people.
One wonders what Haines feels is the “normal functioning” of a “responsible collectors’ discussion list” that a little questioning of what is going on in the antiquities trade is considered to be “affecting”. Frankly, I do not see how Haines can have it both ways.
“a private communication that I received from a moderator of Moneta-L.”
well, I’ll put it on record that I still have received nothing of the kind from them, despite repeated requests, just something a few weeks ago from Robert Kokotailo which was a laughable and wholly irrelevant cock-and-bull story which perhaps I’ll put on record too here one day.
”listmembers would not welcome this, because they believed you would attempt to "hijack" these lists and induce them to focus on your theme
Instead of theirs. Surely a discussion list is as good as its contributors. There does not see to be much “contribution” going on about any other topics on Unidroit-L at least, does there? Are not cleaning up the antiquities trade, identifying and weeding out freshly-looted stuff and fakes from the market, perceiving the need for and creating a viable system for recording collecting histories and conveying it to a coin's buyer and its future owners topics fully worthy of discussion on the forums of “responsible collectors”? These were the topics I recall attempting to discuss with "responsible collectors" on their forums. Why in fact would those be solely “my own” themes, and not the themes of a RESPONSIBLE COLLECTORS’ Forum?
Any “crusade against collecting unprovenanced portable antiquities” is entirely justifiable if we are to weed out freshly looted stuff and fakes from the market, surely that is what everybody who deals and collects responsibly wants? Don't they? Why do they not join such a “crusade” to clean up the market? That’s the 64 million dollar question isn’t it? What have truly responsible collectors and dealers to lose ? Tell me.
”In my view, online discussion groups by their nature resist being focused upon any single theme and being dominated by any one individual. ” wot, like Unidroit-L? :>)
” A blog is a far more suitable venue for your purposes. ” Well, it would be instructive for us all to see what is going on over on the "responsible collectors’ forums". Why are they closed to outside view if there is nothing untoward going on there to spoil the image of collecting? More transparency.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with what you have to say is not that it is per se wrong, but that it is written from a perspective which is not agreed to (nor supported by) most listmembers of the Moneta-L, Ancientartifacts and Unidroit-L discussion groups.
A fair reading of the issues involved takes us to the reality that you are carrying on a crusade against looting of archaeological sites. Thus far we all agree: such looting is a very bad thing - everyone involved in collecting and archaeology wants it to be suppressed. The question is: How?
Now we come to the very debatable contention that collecting of unprovenanced antiquities causes looting of archaeological sites. Suffice it to say that so far this contention remains unproven. There is as yet no scientifically valid published evidence to support it.
It can hardly be expected that the members of these lists, most of whom are collectors of portable antiquities, would welcome your efforts to focus their attention upon the theme of “protecting the archaeological resource from looting” through your “crusade against collecting unprovenanced portable antiquities.”
Whilst nearly everyone on these lists agrees that you certainly have the right to pursue this crusade, and many including myself support it up to a point, they nevertheless feel that these lists are a venue for discussing coins and artifacts, not for carrying on a crusade against collecting unprovenanced antiquities.
You ask "Why do they not join such a “crusade” to clean up the market? That’s the 64 million dollar question isn’t it? What have truly responsible collectors and dealers to lose ? Tell me." Here is the answer:
You are attempting to place the entire burden of responsibility for "cleaning up the market" upon collectors and the dealers who supply them. These collectors and dealers, in reality, do not have the power to change the market by their unaided efforts.
As I have repeatedly pointed out in my blog and elsewhere, the key market that drives looting is the local black market in the source nation involved.
So long as this black market will pay enough for artifacts to motivate people to search for them they will do that, regardless of what happens to the artifacts after they enter that black market.
This has been going on for many centuries, perhaps even millennia, certainly long before Western collectors had any influence on these local markets.
The notion asserted by Elia and Renfrew that Western collectors are driving looting by providing a market for looted objects is in my view (and that of most others in the trade) largely unjustified.
Whilst there is reason to believe that major antiquities such as statues, fine ceramics and other things which most people would classify as "museum pieces" are sought with a view toward selling them in Western art markets, there is no reason to think that anyone disturbs archaeological sites to find coins and similar minor antiquities that are widely collected.
It is self evident that a black market in a source nation cannot be controlled or suppressed by anyone outside that nation. Any effective action to suppress looting has to begin there.
Dave Welsh
Classical Coins
www.classicalcoins.com
service@classicalcoins.com
Well, now you've had your say about why collectors will not discuss anyone's notions of "responsible collecting" but their own narrowly-conceived ones (which seems rather a sterile "discussion"), we can get these comments back on the topic discussed in the post?
ReplyDeletePaul, so pleased that you are back, your blog is a daily addiction of mine. Here in Canada the detectorist is really no threat,almost all of our first nations archaeology is stone and bone, of course that which was not, was "collected" by keen amateurs and clergymen in the years after first contact.Only now are some important cultural artifacts being returned to their rightful owners. Thanks for taking your courageous stand and I look forward to many more interesting posts.
ReplyDeletecheers,
David Brackman
Thanks Mr Brackman, it's nice to know my efforts to make sense of all this are appreciated by decent folk.
ReplyDeleteSo glad you are back and keeping up the pressure on the PAS. You were sadly missed....
ReplyDeleteThanks Pam, well, I do not think that particular organization feels particularly "pressurised". Like the collectors they "partner", the idea that they might usefully be actually engaging with even a fraction of the issues their policies and stance raises as outreach, seems - from the lack of open reaction - to be entirely foreign to them.
ReplyDeleteI was sorry to read about all of this harrassment you've experienced. It brings home how antiquities collecting issues are not some safe, soft pursuit, and also that the pro collecting lobby has some very aggressive characters among its number. Though I have written on a much smaller scale about metal detecting, and would not be bold enough to do the sort of naming and shaming that you do, I did notice a couple of months ago a lot of really unpleasant spam messages piling up on one of my posts about the 'nighthawking report'. I can only suspect that this was intentionally targetted, as I get very little spam otherwise on my blog. Will
ReplyDeleteThanks Will, yes, these people include many that are not the nice "history buffs" of the propaganda. And the ones that are do little to weed out the culprits from among their number. Few have the guts or gumption to speak out.
ReplyDeleteI think I have a pretty good idea who would be behind your spamming.