Peter Tompa plays the victim again:
Archaeo-blogger Nathan Elkins has accused CPO of "intellectual dishonesty" for questioning the assumption that archaeologists promptly and carefully excavate and record everything of significance at their digs.Well, follow back the link and see to what actually it refers, and it's nothing to do with "prompt record". Paid lobbyist Tompa pathetically defends himself of the accusation of intellectual dishonesty by indulging in more (Monday, March 10, 2014, 'Exceptions or Rules and Prevailing Trends in Archaeology?'). His argument runs a contorted course,
Step 1) "archaeological fanatics like Elkins, David Gill and Paul Barford regularly attack the Treasure Act and PAS because it allegedly encourages "unscientific excavations" by amateurs wielding metal detectors".No, we do not, that is not the point, and its not the point of the article with which Tompa began.
Step 2) " But what of recent news of significant Viking and Egyptian finds not from the field but from storerooms where the artifacts in question had lain for a century or more? Or information that coins from Roman contexts excavated over a century ago are still awaiting proper publication and study?"well, what have they to do with PAS and the Treasure Act? (clue: nothing). the ability to return to the analysis and reanalysis of archaeological material in the future is the precise reason why we have museums and storerooms. So, no, these are not "exceptions", it's part and parcel of how a discipline develops with time. We store old botanical specimens and forensic evidence from unsolved crimes for the same reason.
Step 3) "perhaps reports under the Treasure Act or PAS are more "scientific" than stale information dug up a century or more ago by trained archaeologists. They are certainly more timely".The Vale of York Hoard, where is the report? Where is the full and final report for even half of the Roman coin hoards dug up and acquired by means of the Treasure Act since 1996? And the other artefact hoards? The monographic report of the Crosby Garrett helmet for example? I see no reports.
But then is Mr Tompa (who I am pretty sure has never been metal detecting) saying that metal detecting is in some way "scientific"? Or that the PAS record and Coroner's inquests are? I am not clear what point he is making, and certainly cannot see any relationship between "reports under the Treasure Act" and the depletion of a surface scatter in a field which was the topic of the original post to which he took exception. The man is just trying to deflect attention away from the actual issue being discussed, which was how artefact hunting is not by any stretch of the imagination producing "scientific documentation" of the bits of the archaeological record it exploits and dismantles.
This is actually pretty typical of the way artefact hunters and their supporters engage in "discussion" (if they ever do at all), by contortions trying to twist the issue around until it becomes a "two-wrongs-make-a-right" argument.
6 comments:
Now Tompa has moved from intellectually dishonest, to flat out liar. Aside from the fact that he skews the context of the thread, trusting his readers won't check original sources, I have never attacked the PAS or Treasure Act; I have, in fact, said while schemes like it could be part of the solution, it's not the 100% fix that Tompa and his ilk claim it to be. More evidence that Tompa is not interested in fact, discourse, or solution, but instead in demonizing perceived threats to promote his own agenda.
For Mr. Elkins, please then clarify your comments here:
http://coinarchaeology.blogspot.com/2008/10/controversial-excavation-of-coin-hoard.html
If despite this, you are now in fact a supporter of PAS and the Treasure Act, then perhaps you can say so more clearly. And if so, why not support its possible application in other countries? Perhaps it is indeed a solution, no?
What the **ck are you on about Mr Tompa? What IS the matter with you?
Where do you see in Prof. Elkins' text an "attack" on the PAS and Treasure Act?
For goodness sake, you were accused of skewing the context of one passage and you "respond" by skewing the meaning of yet another! Where will this all end?
"More evidence that Tompa is not interested in fact, discourse, or solution, but instead in demonizing perceived threats to promote his own agenda.
I see no attack of the PAS or treasure act in that post. Indeed, the topic of concern is at what point the treasure hunters should have allowed specialists to take over, rather than digging it all out in an unscientific way. The PAS and Treasure Act are not intended to be an excuse for illicit activity. I have always maintained that schemes like the PAS or Treasure Act could be part of the solution. It is not THE solution as you maintain. If you believe it is the one and only solution, you certainly do not grasp the complexities of the looting problem. And I agree with the above observation that this constant skewing of actual statements and positions is tiresome.
There was a typo in my post. Instead of of illicit activity, I meant detrimental activity.
I cannot edit comments, but your meaning is clear. The issue of when to stop and let a proper investigation begin is at the heart of that A20 fiasco discussed here at the beginning of the month. It is a constantly-recurring problem.
Post a Comment