One "Alexander" once thought it meet and proper to use Peter Tompa's Lobboblog for some uncalled-for comments on a third party (here too). As a response to my challenging him, Tompa announced that he'd no longer accept anonymous comments.* Now, this "Alexander" is back () posting comments about "dark secrets" and conspiracies of silence on the CPO blog:
Alexander said..."Arthur" eh? Arthur-who, one wonders. Guesses anyone? I really see it as illogical that these people ("Peter" and "Arthur") obviously consider that there IS a legitimate and fully legal trade in archaeological artefacts, and besides it, one which involves illicit (looted) ones. I really therefore see their lumping of all artefact collecting into one unit for pretended disapproval as something less than logical. As I have pointed out time and time again, the PAS has no problem with partnership with responsible dealers and collectors, the AIA (in reality) only condemns the trade in illicit items. I really see no problem with archaeologists collecting antiquities or old bottles and WW2 cartridge cases, stones with holes in them, or whatever if the artefacts/items are obtained ethically and responsibly (which in bought items means at least on the market licitly), documented, and disposed of responsibly.
Peter, you should know that one of archaeology's dark secrets is the number of those in the discipline who collect ancient artifacts. [...] Arthur
* "Henceforth, comments will only be posted from those who provide a full name, country of residence and basis for interest, i.e., collector, archaeologist, academic, etc. or their Blogger profile provides such information".
UPDATE 15.12.13
"Alexander" again features as the pseudonym of an "Arthur" on Wayne Sayles' blog, where the post echoes several of the motifs common in Arthur Houghton's posts on Peter Tompa's blog. Why on earth would the Director of the American Cultural Property Research Institute want to write under a silly pseudonym?
No comments:
Post a Comment