tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post972582306831157800..comments2024-03-27T04:46:33.198-07:00Comments on Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: Well, What DO the PAS think? [UPDATED]Paul Barfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-52839513762113054612018-12-03T18:51:24.439-08:002018-12-03T18:51:24.439-08:00But more people live in those most countries than ...But more people live in those most countries than on your little green island off the edge of Europe. In Europe widely what you islanders are doing is knowledge theft from the rest of us - and we see that as the 'offensive' attitude. We have no illusions about changing artefact collectors' opinion about themselves. This blog is bout artefact hunters, not for them. Wider public opinion is the key to controlling the damage. <br />Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-46853169378400866212018-12-03T16:16:04.572-08:002018-12-03T16:16:04.572-08:00Well luckily I don't live in most countries, I...Well luckily I don't live in most countries, I live in a country where it is not theft and I find the use of the term offensive. I think you need to read my comments again. I am saying that HA are dressing opinion up as fact and I am saying that attributing meaning to a body of people without substantiating evidence is reprehensible. I see no evidence of being lost there. As to your suggestion that I agree that knowledge theft is indeed morally reprehensible, I would refer you back to my first sentence. In my opinion, you and HA have a predilection towards provocative terminology that does neither of you, or your stated causes a service. If you stuck to presenting facts and removed unnecessarily emotive language, you would probably be better received amongst the groups that you clearly wish to change. That, of course, is my opinion and not offered as a fact. Coldplayerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02780288111716276786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-56190985168990317582018-12-02T23:11:14.844-08:002018-12-02T23:11:14.844-08:00I think you are getting lost in your own desire to...I think you are getting lost in your own desire to defend artefact collection. In most countries removal of artefacts from the archaeologicl record in order to hang on to them is seen as "theft", stealing from follow citizens. Britian is one of the few countries that does not have this kind of legislatyion in place yet. In Britain therefore, as HA say 'theft of society’s knowledge of it’s past isn’t morally indefensible'. That's all. Your indignation seems to suggest that you agree that knowledge theft when it occurs is indeed morally reprehensible, yes? Paul Barfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443302899233809948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174756573570334952.post-33660797306325471472018-12-02T15:25:28.922-08:002018-12-02T15:25:28.922-08:00In using the term "theft" whilst not pro...In using the term "theft" whilst not providing any evidence of such, is indefensible. Continually quoting a study (as Heritage Action does) which has "Estimate" in its title and contains in its conclusion the words "ESTIMATE, INFERRING, SUGGESTS, ASSUMED, APPEARS and PERHAPS, whilst also admitting to “the weakness of the available data”, is quite frankly disgraceful. As a professional archaeologist, you of all people should know, that demonstrable facts are of primary importance in any study. Sharing an observation that says it is "evident that most detectorists take voluntary to mean not necessary", without providing any such evidence, is reprehensible. Opinions are fine, yours is as valid as anybody's, as is Heritage Action's. But presenting opinions as fact IS immoral.Coldplayerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02780288111716276786noreply@blogger.com