UPDATE Addendum to: "The Heritage Debate: The Voice of Reason versus Aggressive Defenders of Vested Interests" (21 August 2013)
I would not return to this idiocy again were it not for the fact that it seems worthwhile drawing attention to the manner in which dugup coin dealer Wayne Sayles interprets ('If the shoe fits wear it') the above text. It speaks volumes. He clearly has not understood about whom Nigel was writing, and all too tellingly misinterprets the phrase "the only important people, the superior stakeholders". From everything else he has written on the topic (see 'The Heritage Journal'), Nigel obviously means by this the public. The public from whom artefact hunters and dealers take the archaeological record without a thought for them. I think his point is well-proven by dealer Sayles simply not comprehending what any of this is about! It is also, I would have thought, obvious that when Nigel talks of "vested interests" of the group he names at the beginning of the text, it does not mean "commercial interest" alone.Then see how Sayles interprets Nigel's whole text to be about coineys: "That is not only inaccurate, it is hugely insulting to millions of people in general, and tens of thousands of independent scholars".
But then is that not - in the definition of that term "independent scholar" - where this discussion begin? I stand accused of "snobbery" and much worse for questioning that what in general is done with these dugup artefacts merits any such term. From what I've seen of the company he keeps, Bazza Thugwit from Billaricay is probably the sort of person who'd beat you up if you dared call him that. Again, Sayles exhibits his self-self-self approach in this passage:
The "status quo" mentioned above so flippantly is actually a 600-year-old tradition with far more achievements in the science of Numismatics than any academic institution ever dreamed of.The status quo to which Nigel refers concerns the legislative frameworks of all types of collecting and what goes on around it. Metal detecting does not have a "600 year tradition" unless you want to count the "science" of dowsing and treasure-scrying. Nor do their Bloomsbury-based "partners".
It seems to me that in his haste to drag this down, once again, to a personal level and lean on the 600-years tradition of the study of coins, Mr Sayles is missing out not a few important issues about where we go forward from the current status quo. What does he suggest is the remedy to the problems he prefers to brush aside? Has he anything to add to the discussion on this?
5 comments:
This was revealing:
“How could they possibly understand that many people fervently believe in study of the past and the advancement of culture without the institutional "guidance" and "moral compass" ”
Now why would he resent a moral compass?
I've stood and watched activity where there was no moral compass. I bet Mr Sayles hasn't. Hundreds of people digging stuff on the edge of a major Roman site, legally, not recording most of their finds but taking them to a dealer with a stall at the side of the field. Many of the items will have ended up with dealers in the States, sans context, and they will have been made available to those “many people” who want to study the past legally but “without a moral compass”. Or maybe it isn't “many people”. Maybe most people would like to follow a moral compass but their dealer tells them the goods are legal and forgets to mention they are also immoral. Eh Mr Sayles? Are dealers the real immoral diggers? Of course you are, and you do it for money, hence your discomfort and anger.
I was struck that you started your article by telling your customers I was a “cultural property nationalist”. What tosh. If you want to discredit me why not call me what I am - “an advocate for the use of a moral compass" if, as you say, many people fervently believe that's a bad thing. Well I think we know the answer. “No moral compass” is a lot less appealing to your customers than you would have people believe. It's you that's the enthusiast. If only you sourced your supplies morally and showed proof that you had I think they'd be pleased. So why are you insulting them by implying otherwise?
Thanks for that, but I'd also like you to send it direct to Sayles to post on his blog and answer.
Let me know when you've done it and we'll see what he does with it. In my experience, for some reason (and unlike this blog) like a number of his fellows he never posts comments that challenge what he has said.
Which is no reason why he should get away with not getting any responses.
Done.
Well, there's a surprise - he did publish it, but instead of his answer, below it is a "reply" (actually a series of further challenges) by sidekick Tompa still further trying to deflect attention.
Well 2 things have emerged:
1, Mr Sales says “Everyone has a moral compass and no two are identical”. How handy! It reminds me of the British metal detectorists who, confronted with a Responsibility Code their colleagues had willingly accepted, sat up all night and produced their own code, also called a Responsibility Code, that gave them the leeway to act badly.
2, But it turns out, anyway, his moral compass tells him simply to abide by the law. Again, like detectorists the cry is: “it's legal innit!” Again, very handy. It enables one to sell, for instance, British dug ups without PAS reference numbers, thereby helping rob Britain of knowledge of it's past. For profit. Which is immoral by any measure and any moral compass. US dealers do a lot of harm to Britain and he can't get away from it no matter how he wriggles.
Post a Comment