In a comment to an earlier text, Heritage Action makes a reference to Mr [David] Connolly and his attempt to curry favour with all plunders of the past by setting out in March last year to prove Heritage Action's Erosion Counter was based on faulty premises. It backfired upon him: Scottish Archaeologist Soothes on Figures of Damage (to my knowledge, the archaeologist has not answered that post in any way or form). Heritage Action's reaction is here: "Metal detecting: Heritage Action vindicated at Portable Antiquities conference".Likewise another archaeologist, this one based in London boldly claimed that the debate over the degree archaeological evidence is being removed from the record by artefact hunting is "staggeringly unimportant". Gabriel Moshenska's text was recently quoted (in extenso) on a metal detecting forum to show that "not all archaeologists" are concerned about artefact hunting and collecting. The person who posted that information of course did not mention (I assume he would not have read it even if he'd been aware it exists) that there was an answer to those comments. Mr Moshenska equally has refused to acknowledge that his opinion on the matter has been challenged, let alone deign to answer what I said with any reasoned reply. Perhaps he considers my criticism of his statements unreasonable, but I leave that up to the reader to judge.
Metal Detectorists and their supporters continue to huff and puff, but they are still not coming up with any evidence that there is NOT a situation here which should be provoking deep concern. I think that what evidence there actually is brings us to the opposite conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment