British Museum director Hartwig Fischer to step down immediately following the museum's recently reported thefts. I can't think how he imagined that he'd stay on after what has beenemerging.
“Mr Fischer also withdrew remarks he made earlier this week about the dealer who first alerted the museum. He said he expressed "sincere regret" over the "misjudged" comments.” (BBC too).
This is however only the beginning. As Jason Felch (@ChasingAphrodit) sums it up "The director of the British Museum has resigned. Some 2,000 objects are missing from the collection. A curator has been sacked, and key questions have not been answered".
I think this also raises questions about the future of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in the Museum, instead of spending 1.5 million quid on the cataloguing of a belt buckle from a detectorist's collection from a hole in the ground in Barry (Glamorgan) or Barrow on Furness, about as distant from Bloomsbury as you can get, perhaps that money would be better spent getting the BM's own artefacts properly catalogued at last.
.jpg)
8 comments:
Oh, dear, you have to slide in your usual dig at the detectorists, haven't you? It is the detectorists who provided the bulk of the items, not the detectorists who stole them. When will you get it through that prejudiced skull of yours that you have lost not only the argument but also the plot? Carry on asking the good lord for his help and advice and I am sure that he will, rather than heeding you, keep helping us find even more goodies. I don't like to gloat but in your case, I will make an exception. Have a nice day.
"It is the detectorists who provided the bulk of the items in the British Museum",
Discuss.
The BM collection has about 8million, PAS claims 1,664,595 objects recorded.
So even if all were retained, they would account for about 20%, nothing like 'the bulk of the items'.
Sod Brandolini, it's not worth the effort to chase the actual numbers of metal detected finds that end up in the BM. We see above that it is a mathematical impossibility, that's without considering; most finds are returned to finder, not subject to treasure legislation, not of 'museum quality' etc
Back to you Mr Shepherd, perhaps you'd like to correct your claim to something like 'a teeny weeny minority of the items'?
Over ONE MILLION individual finds discovered by the public were logged by the British Museum in 2019. With the bulk of these finds
being uncovered by metal detectorists, I assume the figure for this year will be much higher. Considering the cost of training an archaeologist and comparing it to the cost of purchasing a metal detector, I think discovery-wise the amateur detectorist demonstrated better value for money. Incidentally, even though it must be galling, it may even be physically painful, [palpitations, headaches, and the like], I did not put myself through four years of post-graduate study to be labeled ''Mister.'' At least have the good grace to address me with the respect I deserve.
The actual facts tell a different story. There were not "one million of finds logged by the British Museum [I assume you mean Portable Antiquities Scheme which has 44 regional offices] IN 2019". Those finds were recorded in the whole period between 1997 and 2019 - a period of 22 years, as the fruits of the "work" of some 40 000 metal detectors. That is just 25 finds per detectorist - no? 25 finds over that period of 22 years. That is hardly what I would call "better value for money discovery-wise".
But the problem is that this number reveals something else, that in those 22 years many many more artefacts must have been hoiked out of the archaeological record of England and Wales (not to mention Scotland) than we have records for. So "negative-discovery-wise" the selfish, irresponsible, knowledge-thieving bastards who are NOT reporting what they find are just doing DAMAGE. British-Museum or no British Museum.
How many of your own (non-Treasure) finds are in that million objects you so gleefully quote Dr Shephard? How many of your finds are not in that database (how long did you say you'd been detecting)?
''The latest Treasure Annual Report'' by the British Museum, states that 96% of ''Treasure Finds,'' were made by metal detectorists. I am in a unique position Paul, I engender respect due to my knowledge of all things physically-micro, and I also have an open-minded approach regarding the use of electronic devices to uncover our past. But you, on the other hand, seem devoid of either, so why should I follow your dictates?
Are you still there my friend or has one of your colleagues discovered a pottery shard necessitating your immediate attention?
My dear Paul, why hast thou forsaken me? We have much to discuss...
Post a Comment