.
Texas metal detectorist Dick Stout over on his own blog comments on 'Portable Antiquities Collecting and Heritage Issues' ('Paul Barford...One Bitter Individual', Stout Standards March 14, 2012). After you take away all the personal stuff about the blogger, his alleged motives and his having a degree in archaeology, we learn that the American expects a blog on artefact looting and trade to have more "positive" and "uplifting" posts than he finds here. He finds however some succour in an article of Dealer Dave Welsh which says nasty things about me too.
He says "I decided to share his blog here because it's important we understand people like Mr. Barford whose only goal in life is to paint us as pot robbers". The "us" that concerns him are metal detectorists [whether only US ones, or anyone going out with a metal detector to search for archaeological finds wherever they do it, is unclear to me].
1) I would say it would be pretty difficult to arrive at any kind of (objective) "understanding" of what I write here while starting from the position that everything Barford says about artefact hunting must be "that next attempt at spreading lies" (especially when admitting that the basis of what I say about artefact hunters generally draws on and refers to genuine examples of what they do and say amongst themselves).
It seems that Mr Stout would like to believe I know nothing about - for example - metal detecting and metal detectorists, ignoring the fact that I have spent a lot of time following their activities since the 1970s, have gone to club meetings, been out detecting with them, collaborated with them on at least two archaeological projects, written about the use of metal detected data and not least spent a lot of time on detecting forums observing the chit chat and social norms.
This is not to mention making several hundred posts out in the open here, any one of which can be challenged and demolished should anybody disagree profoundly with what I write. Many metal detectorists (most memorably Norman and Linda Kennedy, "Sheddy", Steve Taylor under a series of assumed names, assorted members of Central Searchers and others) have sent comments, but few of them actually address what I wrote, most of them content themselves with making threats or engaging in personal attacks like Mr Stout.
Mr Stout should be aware that I have never claimed to know everything about metal detecting (which is why I keep coming back to learn more), but it is not true to say I am "ignorant" of the subject, just because see it differently than he does.
2) Mr Stout is rather unfortunate in his choice of "evidence" to support his allegations of ignorance and deliberate falsehood. He cites the "Sheddy" You Tube video of the November 2011 Framlingham "Hot Tub Stone-Throwing Rally" which he says was attended by 30 people who "are amoungst (sic) the best detectorists in the country, they know thier (sic) machines and how to use them". Yet, he says he really believes that the video is proof positive that detectorists find much less than "Paul Barford" says they do.
Now, Mr Stout seems unaware that I have in fact already discussed this particular video earlier on this blog. I show there that "Sheddy" (not his real name) is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes trying to claim that what is shown was all the recordable material found, in the body of the video we see people showing off finds that do not appear in the tally at the end for example. I also find it really odd that Stout can accept that here so little is found by detecting, yet on similar sites on similar soils, just across the river Stout's pal Chicago Ron finds oodles of stuff, year after year on his detecting holidays in Essex. So which metal detectorists are telling untruths, the "there is nothing to be found in East Anglia's fields" brigade, or the "come to England and find lots of stuff in Essex and East Anglia's fields" brigade detecting just down the A12?
Mr Stout seems not to see the significance of the comment in this video that "all finds have been recorded but will not be released to the PAS for 5 years at the landowners request". Well, if they have not been reported to the PAS, by any definition of "responsible artefact hunting", they are not responsibly recorded. It really makes not a bit of difference how many finds detectorists are or are not "finding", what matters in the assessment of the damage done (or "social usefulness" if you like) of the hobby is what proportion are reported to the PAS. "None at all yet" is hardly a laudable result - no matter how "few" finds EFID detectorists claim are involved. As I have said before, paying a little attention not only to "detectorists rights" but also to "detectorists responsibilities" would not go amiss.
3) Stout crowns his efforts by informing his State-side readers who this "Heritage Action" is. He reckons it is "a website run by a close associate of Mr. Barford, Nigel Swift". Mr Swift is currently Chairman of Heritage Action, which if Mr Stout knew more about what he was attacking, he'd know is more than just a "website". He refers his readers to one of the threads on their blog (which Mr Stout calls a forum - the story of the involvement of metal detectorists in closing down Heritage Action's real forum is one Mr Stout should know). He says that the exchange of views in the comments, to one of the posts (about Treasure rewards) shows that Mr Swift and I are "birds of a feather". Well, first of all I made no comments to that post (but for the record I agree with Heritage Action), but I invite readers to take note of the way the metal detectorists taking part in that discussion comport themselves after HA made what any of us would consider a quite valid point.
4) I'd like also to draw attention to what Mr Stout sets out to do on his blog. I cannot work out how to give a direct link (it seems to be impossible on his blog), but he announces it under February 1st 2012 in the "Latest News" section. He announces a new feature, called "Who We Are". The aim of this is:
5) My feeling is that artefact hunters have it pretty good, especially in the UK. Archaeologists in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in general are very understanding, pat metal detectorists on the head, fall down as suppliants before them, begging them to show the next batch of goodies, ooo-ing and ah-ing appropriately in front of the media cameras. Archaeologists call artefact hunters their "partners". The media are fed a plethora of good-news stories full of dumbed-down archaeo-pap (which they swallow uncritically). Metal detectorists have clubs (not illegal) go on commercially organized rallies and 'detecting holidays' (not illegal), have magazines and forums, websites galore. All presenting the "it's all right" picture of artefact hunting and collecting. So-called nighthawks roam the countryside at will, nobody stops them. The British government says it "will do something" about the illicit trade (of which London is one of the biggest hotbeds in the world), but everyone knows they will not. To their eternal shame, Washington is doing MORE in this area than Whitehall (and that is simply pathetic when we consider the actual extent of what the US government is actually doing). And Mr Stout has his "who we are" propaganda, carefully missing out the bits he wants to carefully miss our in presenting his picture purporting to be "how it really is".
So the reader might well reflect on why there is any angst at all from these folk about the fact that there is one blog which attempts to present in a more holistic form and defend a picture of artefact hunting and collecting and the antiquities trade different from the picture that artefact hunters, collectors and dealers are trying to present to the general (non-collecting) public - the real stakeholders. What is their problem?
And if they have a problem, then what is their difficulty in addressing what is written instead of simply trying to attack the writer?
Vignette: Bitter man
Texas metal detectorist Dick Stout over on his own blog comments on 'Portable Antiquities Collecting and Heritage Issues' ('Paul Barford...One Bitter Individual', Stout Standards March 14, 2012). After you take away all the personal stuff about the blogger, his alleged motives and his having a degree in archaeology, we learn that the American expects a blog on artefact looting and trade to have more "positive" and "uplifting" posts than he finds here. He finds however some succour in an article of Dealer Dave Welsh which says nasty things about me too.He says "I decided to share his blog here because it's important we understand people like Mr. Barford whose only goal in life is to paint us as pot robbers". The "us" that concerns him are metal detectorists [whether only US ones, or anyone going out with a metal detector to search for archaeological finds wherever they do it, is unclear to me].
1) I would say it would be pretty difficult to arrive at any kind of (objective) "understanding" of what I write here while starting from the position that everything Barford says about artefact hunting must be "that next attempt at spreading lies" (especially when admitting that the basis of what I say about artefact hunters generally draws on and refers to genuine examples of what they do and say amongst themselves).
It seems that Mr Stout would like to believe I know nothing about - for example - metal detecting and metal detectorists, ignoring the fact that I have spent a lot of time following their activities since the 1970s, have gone to club meetings, been out detecting with them, collaborated with them on at least two archaeological projects, written about the use of metal detected data and not least spent a lot of time on detecting forums observing the chit chat and social norms.
This is not to mention making several hundred posts out in the open here, any one of which can be challenged and demolished should anybody disagree profoundly with what I write. Many metal detectorists (most memorably Norman and Linda Kennedy, "Sheddy", Steve Taylor under a series of assumed names, assorted members of Central Searchers and others) have sent comments, but few of them actually address what I wrote, most of them content themselves with making threats or engaging in personal attacks like Mr Stout.
Mr Stout should be aware that I have never claimed to know everything about metal detecting (which is why I keep coming back to learn more), but it is not true to say I am "ignorant" of the subject, just because see it differently than he does.
2) Mr Stout is rather unfortunate in his choice of "evidence" to support his allegations of ignorance and deliberate falsehood. He cites the "Sheddy" You Tube video of the November 2011 Framlingham "Hot Tub Stone-Throwing Rally" which he says was attended by 30 people who "are amoungst (sic) the best detectorists in the country, they know thier (sic) machines and how to use them". Yet, he says he really believes that the video is proof positive that detectorists find much less than "Paul Barford" says they do.
Now, Mr Stout seems unaware that I have in fact already discussed this particular video earlier on this blog. I show there that "Sheddy" (not his real name) is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes trying to claim that what is shown was all the recordable material found, in the body of the video we see people showing off finds that do not appear in the tally at the end for example. I also find it really odd that Stout can accept that here so little is found by detecting, yet on similar sites on similar soils, just across the river Stout's pal Chicago Ron finds oodles of stuff, year after year on his detecting holidays in Essex. So which metal detectorists are telling untruths, the "there is nothing to be found in East Anglia's fields" brigade, or the "come to England and find lots of stuff in Essex and East Anglia's fields" brigade detecting just down the A12?
Mr Stout seems not to see the significance of the comment in this video that "all finds have been recorded but will not be released to the PAS for 5 years at the landowners request". Well, if they have not been reported to the PAS, by any definition of "responsible artefact hunting", they are not responsibly recorded. It really makes not a bit of difference how many finds detectorists are or are not "finding", what matters in the assessment of the damage done (or "social usefulness" if you like) of the hobby is what proportion are reported to the PAS. "None at all yet" is hardly a laudable result - no matter how "few" finds EFID detectorists claim are involved. As I have said before, paying a little attention not only to "detectorists rights" but also to "detectorists responsibilities" would not go amiss.
3) Stout crowns his efforts by informing his State-side readers who this "Heritage Action" is. He reckons it is "a website run by a close associate of Mr. Barford, Nigel Swift". Mr Swift is currently Chairman of Heritage Action, which if Mr Stout knew more about what he was attacking, he'd know is more than just a "website". He refers his readers to one of the threads on their blog (which Mr Stout calls a forum - the story of the involvement of metal detectorists in closing down Heritage Action's real forum is one Mr Stout should know). He says that the exchange of views in the comments, to one of the posts (about Treasure rewards) shows that Mr Swift and I are "birds of a feather". Well, first of all I made no comments to that post (but for the record I agree with Heritage Action), but I invite readers to take note of the way the metal detectorists taking part in that discussion comport themselves after HA made what any of us would consider a quite valid point.
4) I'd like also to draw attention to what Mr Stout sets out to do on his blog. I cannot work out how to give a direct link (it seems to be impossible on his blog), but he announces it under February 1st 2012 in the "Latest News" section. He announces a new feature, called "Who We Are". The aim of this is:
if you or your club are having to fight city hall, be it local or on the state level, you will be able to find data here to help in your efforts. I will search through all my postings, and list data I have received concerning the good we have done and continue to do. Things like rebuttal letters, emails, newspaper articles, and correspondence from those that I am in contact with. Basically anything that promotes that area of our pastime that our opponents tend to overlook, forget or ignore. We are a proud group, and we need to let others know.He sees nothing wrong with a one-sided presentation of the hobby if it is a positive one, but accuses those who point out the negative side of artefact hunting in its current form of "lies" and "distortions". This is typical tekkie-talk of course. They never really succeed in extending the discussion further than a few glib unsupportable assertions after the accusation, and leave the discussion the moment you try to evaluate what they have just said.
5) My feeling is that artefact hunters have it pretty good, especially in the UK. Archaeologists in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in general are very understanding, pat metal detectorists on the head, fall down as suppliants before them, begging them to show the next batch of goodies, ooo-ing and ah-ing appropriately in front of the media cameras. Archaeologists call artefact hunters their "partners". The media are fed a plethora of good-news stories full of dumbed-down archaeo-pap (which they swallow uncritically). Metal detectorists have clubs (not illegal) go on commercially organized rallies and 'detecting holidays' (not illegal), have magazines and forums, websites galore. All presenting the "it's all right" picture of artefact hunting and collecting. So-called nighthawks roam the countryside at will, nobody stops them. The British government says it "will do something" about the illicit trade (of which London is one of the biggest hotbeds in the world), but everyone knows they will not. To their eternal shame, Washington is doing MORE in this area than Whitehall (and that is simply pathetic when we consider the actual extent of what the US government is actually doing). And Mr Stout has his "who we are" propaganda, carefully missing out the bits he wants to carefully miss our in presenting his picture purporting to be "how it really is".
So the reader might well reflect on why there is any angst at all from these folk about the fact that there is one blog which attempts to present in a more holistic form and defend a picture of artefact hunting and collecting and the antiquities trade different from the picture that artefact hunters, collectors and dealers are trying to present to the general (non-collecting) public - the real stakeholders. What is their problem?
And if they have a problem, then what is their difficulty in addressing what is written instead of simply trying to attack the writer?
Vignette: Bitter man
No comments:
Post a Comment