 |
| You Tube bunny stars |
CIfA @InstituteArch 40 minWhat? Artefact hunting and collecting ("remaining") "ethical" at the expense of the protection of the archaeological record? Because they can't have both. Has the CIfA produced some guidelines on what that "ethical antiquities collecting" consists of that would apply to this phenomenon generally?
We welcome Government update of the definition of Treasure, especially the new significance-based approach to valuing finds. A good first step in improving the Act, but more work is needed to ensure the system remains ethical and sustainable. / CIfA would have liked to see the extended definition applied to non-metal objects too. We also support longer term reform to further dissociate the idea of ‘treasure’ with financial value, with a clearer focus on cultural value.
There are now probably 40k artefact hunters in UK (PAS figures) all after their little bits of the archaeological record to pocket since 1970s. Many other UK artefact collectors patronising global antiquities market. How does @InstituteArch see that as in any way ("remaining") "sustainable"?
Leaving aside the whole question of the actual mechanism of defining this idea of "significance", what abut the CIfA's notion of "valuing finds" on their "cultural value"? We are back to the shiny baubles and pretty pendants with kings' initials on them. What about CIfA advocacy for archaeological value (and context)? British archaeology gives out such mixed messages.
1 comment:
To remain "ethical and sustainable"?
CIfA doesn't seem to have the slightest grip on reality. Mass collecting of a finite resource can never be sustainable. As for ethical, let it follow the terrible logic of the number of reported finds and the number of detectorists.
Or else register on a few detecting forums for a few months. I doubt they have ever done so, why else would they have produced such poppycock.
Post a Comment