Sunday, 22 July 2018

[Not going to be] Debating Collection-Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record with the Ixelles Six


Helsinki pissing
I have just had a condescending letter from a person claiming to speak on behalf of the Ixelles Six who attempted to trash Sam Hardy's research on the scale of non-recording by 'metal detectorists'. On their behalf he says they all refuse to discuss the issues I raise in my comments. I have asked for permission to post their letter to me online as a matter of public record. They should allow that and you can see what they wrote.

Instead of replying to the issues I raise with the tactics they use to Hardy's conclusions are wrong, and agenda-driven 'never mind the damage look at the benefits', they say in their letter to me:
We would welcome a response to our article in a scholarly forum, and we hope Sam Hardy, or someone else, writes a reasoned article to develop discussion.
I would suggest that one may perfectly reasonably conclude that developing the discussion in the direction Sam Hardy and myself were going is the last thing wanted by these representatives of projects such as MEDEA, DIME, PAN, SuALT etc. I think they are expecting a different kind of incestuous academic back-slapping response from other SuAlt project members perhaps. I am not sure whether they really will 'welcome' the conclusions of other writers with whom I have already discussed their efforts. Adjectives such as 'lazy', 'shoddy', 'patronising' tended to dominate. We can only find other adjectives in the dark side of the blogosphere belonging to the collectors who are delighted that they have 
impressively demolished [Dr] Sam Hardy’s anti-metal detecting Research Paper. 
It seems that the Ixelles Six, the PAS and the collection-driven exploiters of the archaeological record are more deeply in this together than they ever have been before.
They have now all firmly pinned their colours to the notion that Dr Hardy cannot possibly be right. And if the scholarly forum agrees that it is they who are wrong...? What then for the further funding of the PAS and the future of 'responsible' artefact hunting in the UK?

3 comments:

Ordinary Bloke said...

"They have now all firmly pinned their colours to the notion that Dr Hardy cannot possibly be right. And if the scholarly forum agrees that it is they who are wrong...? What then for the further funding of the PAS"

What indeed? But what if Dr Hardy is wrong? What if the unreported items don't comprise 94% but 90%? What then for the further funding of PAS?

Paul Barford said...

This brings us to that perennial question, by how much would these figures have to be wrong to make what is happening OK? I doubt we'll get an answer from the crumbling Ixelles Six.

Ordinary Bloke said...

Well I can answer your question. ANYONE that doesn't report their recordable finds is thumbing their nose at Society and sometimes damaging or destroying our collectively owned memory.

So where does it say that in their academic paper or in the massive website run by PAS? First things first. THEN the question of numbers.

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.