 |
| The topsy-turvey abusive and toxic relationship between collectors and UK archaeological "partners" |
Heritage Action on the recent PAS "Responsible Metal Detecting" video, funded by public money:
'PAS's First Million (UPDATED - British Museum Hides the Statistics from Public?)' PACHI 16 November 2021.
'PAS: So What Are the Real Figures Anyway, and How Are They Calculated?' PACHI 19 November 2021.
See: ' A Revised Artefact Erosion Counter' PACHI Sunday, 15 July 2018.
WHY, actually, are so few people discussing these figures (even if they intend to show they are "wrong")? Is it of no concern to a single heritage professional? Really? The whole lot of them totally oblivious and negligent of some disturbing information? Or are they just overwhelmed by a feeling of helplessness and decide to fall into a marasm of denial and reality-avoidance? Are they really so "entangled" in a network of dependence on the collectors that Neil Brodie wrote about? Perhaps instead of sinking deeper into the soft coils of denial and ignorance, British archaeology might think about finding a way out of this abusive and toxic relationship.
In my opinion not conning the landowner about your behaviour is the single most important thing a detectorist should be doing for the farmer, science, archaeology and the country, yet there’s not a word on the video about that from the professionals. In my opinion, that’s just not right. It lets everybody down.PAS happy to take public cash, less keen on keeping the public informed about the real situation on the ground that thie public-funded "liaison" reveals. Just keep soldiering on, hope nobody will catch on to the one-in-nine scam.
'PAS's First Million (UPDATED - British Museum Hides the Statistics from Public?)' PACHI 16 November 2021.
'PAS: So What Are the Real Figures Anyway, and How Are They Calculated?' PACHI 19 November 2021.
See: ' A Revised Artefact Erosion Counter' PACHI Sunday, 15 July 2018.
WHY, actually, are so few people discussing these figures (even if they intend to show they are "wrong")? Is it of no concern to a single heritage professional? Really? The whole lot of them totally oblivious and negligent of some disturbing information? Or are they just overwhelmed by a feeling of helplessness and decide to fall into a marasm of denial and reality-avoidance? Are they really so "entangled" in a network of dependence on the collectors that Neil Brodie wrote about? Perhaps instead of sinking deeper into the soft coils of denial and ignorance, British archaeology might think about finding a way out of this abusive and toxic relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment