British Museum director Neil MacGregor spoke last week of his fears for Britain's museums in a time of public spending cuts, saying that the current situation was "very worrying". He emphasised the importance of museums up and down Britain as "keepers of civic space and the public realm, and of huge importance in the economic life of their towns and cities" (Charlotte Higgins, 'Babylonian relic to visit US with historic message of tolerance', The Guardian 27 November 2012). It is not entirely clear what he means by "keepers of civic space" - is he talking about the role of the buildings as local landmarks? Or providing civic space for people to congregate? Certainly I think it is a worrying trend to subsume everything to civic bodies making money from tourism.
Sunday, 2 December 2012
Neil MacGregor on the Values of Museums
British Museum director Neil MacGregor spoke last week of his fears for Britain's museums in a time of public spending cuts, saying that the current situation was "very worrying". He emphasised the importance of museums up and down Britain as "keepers of civic space and the public realm, and of huge importance in the economic life of their towns and cities" (Charlotte Higgins, 'Babylonian relic to visit US with historic message of tolerance', The Guardian 27 November 2012). It is not entirely clear what he means by "keepers of civic space" - is he talking about the role of the buildings as local landmarks? Or providing civic space for people to congregate? Certainly I think it is a worrying trend to subsume everything to civic bodies making money from tourism.
15 detectorists seen in Staffs Hoard field
.
Now why would English Heritage (sic) be doing a survey in the field where the Staffordshire Hoard was found when it was announced months ago that the archaeologists who'd investigated the site and its surroundings had finished and there were no metal objects to be found? Detectorist "Wozelbeak" was recently told something else (Nov 21, 2012 9:44 pm ):
Now why would English Heritage (sic) be doing a survey in the field where the Staffordshire Hoard was found when it was announced months ago that the archaeologists who'd investigated the site and its surroundings had finished and there were no metal objects to be found? Detectorist "Wozelbeak" was recently told something else (Nov 21, 2012 9:44 pm ):
Any ideas what is going on in the Staffordshire hoard field? about 15 detectorists on there today. i asked them what they were up to? they said conducting a survey for English heritage. the guy i spoke to seemed very illusive.Why not a geophysics survey instead? According to another member, "the landowner has had a lot of trouble, with detectorists and a lot of bad feeling".
Every Collector Should Have One
.
I find a certain Wikipedia page rather amusing. A well-known acquisitor of huge amounts of antiques (including dugup antiquities) has an embarrassingly over-extensive Wikipedia coverage, including masses of laudatory quotes from various folk, including Irina Bokova, Director General of UNESCO :
I find a certain Wikipedia page rather amusing. A well-known acquisitor of huge amounts of antiques (including dugup antiquities) has an embarrassingly over-extensive Wikipedia coverage, including masses of laudatory quotes from various folk, including Irina Bokova, Director General of UNESCO :
“.... what Prof. Khalili (David) represents... he is more than a collector, art historian, business man, of diverse cultural background...he’s just a HUMANIST and this is what is so wonderful about him.” “... In 17th Century France, there is a very interesting description of people (such as David) – an HONEST MAN , meaning a man of passionate intellect and great culture, a man of balance and reason.... (showing) an intellectual and moral spirituality towards humanity. “Dear Professor Khalili, you have always been an ambassador for the values that inspire UNESCO’s action.”What a shame one cannot say that about all antiquity collectors. So, why don't all those collectors of dugup antiquities get themselves a three-page Wikipedia entry duplicating in extenso that which is already online in their websites? They need an Egerton1981 and Malkalior of their own. Where can one get one?
Saturday, 1 December 2012
Intellectual landscapes and Honesty in the Coin Trade
.
I see that one of my blog's biggest fans recently is senior coin dealer Wayne Sayles who in order to while away time in his twilight years is playing a game of taking isolated phrases from this blog (rather like the way coineys "study" decontextualised coins). His latest plaything is a phrase he says comes from my blog which he claims represents some kind of a change of attitude (Cf here)* towards no-questions-asking coineys:
What we do find [in a post ironically enough entitled "Coiney Reason Lost in the Ozarks"] is the rhetorical question (addressed to bored coineys sniping at the author of the current blog):
If one talks about the broader intellectual landscape within which astrology, phrenology, bird egg collecting, rhino horn poaching, creationists and leyliners function, it does not mean that any of them actually is an academic discipline. Nevertheless, Sayles uses my alleged statement about the place of coineyism in "the 'broader intellectual landscape' within which they ['coineys'] function...." as a springboard for the usual meaningless waffle about the advantages of ("anyone can do it") avocational independent (ie unfettered) 'scholarship' over that more formally organized. He totally misses the point about the very post he claims to be (but actually avoids) quoting, which is about the form of the source material for this independent activity.
But missing the point is what coineyism is all about. The blinkered approach that Sayles talks of ("I must admit that I have never really thought a great deal about the intellectual landscape of ancient coin collecting...") is the fundamental characteristic of the milieu as I define it. A characteristic of real academic disciplines is that they frequently conduct assessments of the state and current state and aims of the subject - so in America we now have the 'Pragmatic Archaeology' (so claim the authors of a recently-published reader - I'll let you know when I've reviewed the book). Do we have an equally "socially conscious" approach to the discipline among coin collectors? No, because that is not how these people look at what they do. The only social context that interests them is their own, the social kudos derived from belonging to what they see as an intellectual elite in their own communities - but ignoring the cost to others of their acquisitiveness. Contrast that with the approach of the authors in the book edited by Preucel and Mrozowski (I should point out that I do not necessarily agree with everything written there...).
Another part of the issue is integrity and honesty. As I asked in the post to which Sayles failed to link, how can there be any integrity in a sub-discipline that will willingly use stolen and potentially stolen data of unknown origins and from damaged original context as the basis for their deliberations indiscriminately with data of more kosher origins? As for intellectual honesty.... A few days ago Coiney Sayles broke several months' silence with a post falsely announcing out of the blue that in a post on this blog, "archaeologist Barford" "endorses" his online coin shop. This text was then distributed by his good mate Rogue Classicist (David Meadows) to at least one influential archaeological forum via 'Explorator'. The text in which he imparts this information however omitted (like all of his others) an internal hyperlink to the blog post here to which he refers. Coupled with his apparent deliberate misrepresentation of what was said, should that be counted as an oversight, or dishonesty? Well, since I myself have nothing to hide, I sent a comment to Sayles' blog containing the link to where his readers can check for themselves what I had said. This is how Sayles' blog looked TWO DAYS after I sent that comment. He'd not accepted it.
Draw your own conclusions about the intellectual honesty and personal morality of the blog owner. Personally I'd say they were both important characteristics I would say if you are asked to buy anything from such a person no-questions-asked.
A few hours after I had posted two texts explaining why I most certainly do not endorse "WGS antiquarian", Sayles (here and here - see here too), instead of deleting, or editing what he'd falsely claimed, the coin dealer tried to wriggle out of responsibility for his own ill-considered actions by posting a little comment (no dateline):
UPDATE: My comment still has not been posted (7:58 AM 2.12.12)
* Note the way he is desperately trying to assure his readers that the critics of coineyism (here represented by the phrase "Barford") are beginning to be won over. Nothing could be further from the truth, more and more people - even in coin collecting itself - are becoming suspicious of the Coin Collectors' Guild this dealer runs and its ulterior motives and real beneficiaries. Part of the reason for this is the constant weasel-wording of lobbyists like Sayles and their use of personal attack and misrepresentation instead of debate and discussion as their modus operandi.
I see that one of my blog's biggest fans recently is senior coin dealer Wayne Sayles who in order to while away time in his twilight years is playing a game of taking isolated phrases from this blog (rather like the way coineys "study" decontextualised coins). His latest plaything is a phrase he says comes from my blog which he claims represents some kind of a change of attitude (Cf here)* towards no-questions-asking coineys:
used a phrase in one of his recent blogs that did cause for me a moment of reflection. "Here I am talking about the 'broader intellectual landscape' within which they ['coineys'] function...." It struck me as odd that Mr. Barford...As usual, he cannot work out how to supply his readers with a link to where say this. I decided I would send a comment to his blog (see below) so his readers can check out for themselves whether what I had allegedly said corresponds to what Sayles asserts. Then the fun started. The search function of this blog, and generally Googling (which usually picks up with alacrity words and phrases from this Google blog) failed to find it. According to them, the phrase quoted by this wannabe-intellectual appears to be totally invented.
What we do find [in a post ironically enough entitled "Coiney Reason Lost in the Ozarks"] is the rhetorical question (addressed to bored coineys sniping at the author of the current blog):
Is the intellectual landscape of ancient coin studies currently so barren?It would seem that the question has been answered by Mr Sayles. In addition, I note that he now openly admits that in fact he believes in coin elves and underground streams flowing deep beneath the earth (probably how he imagines the coin elves bringing the coins he sells moving across international borders). I wonder if he really understands what the writer of this blog means by the use of the phrase "coin elves"?
If one talks about the broader intellectual landscape within which astrology, phrenology, bird egg collecting, rhino horn poaching, creationists and leyliners function, it does not mean that any of them actually is an academic discipline. Nevertheless, Sayles uses my alleged statement about the place of coineyism in "the 'broader intellectual landscape' within which they ['coineys'] function...." as a springboard for the usual meaningless waffle about the advantages of ("anyone can do it") avocational independent (ie unfettered) 'scholarship' over that more formally organized. He totally misses the point about the very post he claims to be (but actually avoids) quoting, which is about the form of the source material for this independent activity.
But missing the point is what coineyism is all about. The blinkered approach that Sayles talks of ("I must admit that I have never really thought a great deal about the intellectual landscape of ancient coin collecting...") is the fundamental characteristic of the milieu as I define it. A characteristic of real academic disciplines is that they frequently conduct assessments of the state and current state and aims of the subject - so in America we now have the 'Pragmatic Archaeology' (so claim the authors of a recently-published reader - I'll let you know when I've reviewed the book). Do we have an equally "socially conscious" approach to the discipline among coin collectors? No, because that is not how these people look at what they do. The only social context that interests them is their own, the social kudos derived from belonging to what they see as an intellectual elite in their own communities - but ignoring the cost to others of their acquisitiveness. Contrast that with the approach of the authors in the book edited by Preucel and Mrozowski (I should point out that I do not necessarily agree with everything written there...).
Another part of the issue is integrity and honesty. As I asked in the post to which Sayles failed to link, how can there be any integrity in a sub-discipline that will willingly use stolen and potentially stolen data of unknown origins and from damaged original context as the basis for their deliberations indiscriminately with data of more kosher origins? As for intellectual honesty.... A few days ago Coiney Sayles broke several months' silence with a post falsely announcing out of the blue that in a post on this blog, "archaeologist Barford" "endorses" his online coin shop. This text was then distributed by his good mate Rogue Classicist (David Meadows) to at least one influential archaeological forum via 'Explorator'. The text in which he imparts this information however omitted (like all of his others) an internal hyperlink to the blog post here to which he refers. Coupled with his apparent deliberate misrepresentation of what was said, should that be counted as an oversight, or dishonesty? Well, since I myself have nothing to hide, I sent a comment to Sayles' blog containing the link to where his readers can check for themselves what I had said. This is how Sayles' blog looked TWO DAYS after I sent that comment. He'd not accepted it.
A few hours after I had posted two texts explaining why I most certainly do not endorse "WGS antiquarian", Sayles (here and here - see here too), instead of deleting, or editing what he'd falsely claimed, the coin dealer tried to wriggle out of responsibility for his own ill-considered actions by posting a little comment (no dateline):
- A subsequent online comment by Mr. Barford suggests that the above post does not reflect his actual feelings. We apologize if that is the case, it seemed like an accurate portrayal of the facts at the time written and certainly was not critical in any way of Mr. Barford. He did indeed advertise the WGS Store without compensation or any other form of inducement -- and for that we are appreciative.
UPDATE: My comment still has not been posted (7:58 AM 2.12.12)
* Note the way he is desperately trying to assure his readers that the critics of coineyism (here represented by the phrase "Barford") are beginning to be won over. Nothing could be further from the truth, more and more people - even in coin collecting itself - are becoming suspicious of the Coin Collectors' Guild this dealer runs and its ulterior motives and real beneficiaries. Part of the reason for this is the constant weasel-wording of lobbyists like Sayles and their use of personal attack and misrepresentation instead of debate and discussion as their modus operandi.
America Abandons Part of Washington Principles: Ministerial Framework Lacking
Bloomberg reports that the US government has announced in The Hague that it has abandoned plans to have an official panel help Jewish heirs find art looted by the Nazis (Stephanie Gruner Buckley, 'American heirs left to battle for Nazi-looted art in the courts' Quartz - November 29, 2012). In 1998, the so-called Washington Principles called for creating commissions to identify art confiscated by Nazi force and help heirs get it back.
Douglas Davidson, the US Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues announced at the conference yesterday that the plan proved “easier to describe than to realize” and there were too many obstacles including too few state-owned museums involved, and no culture ministry to which the panel could report.Why has the United States of America no ministry of culture? Seriously. Why are cultural property issues dealt with by various federal bodies tasked with other issues, such as the Department of State, the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Treasury? Does that not tell us something about US attitudes to culture in general and cultural property in particular?
Ransomed past, Jethro Gets his Money
.
A metal detectorist has managed to sell the nation its heritage back, metal detecting on Bredon Hill he found a hoard and in order for it to go to a museum, he had to be paid off (Sarah Taylor, 'Coin hoard is to stay in the county' Worcester news, Tuesday 27th November 2012).
 |
| Leather-clad tekkie Jethro Carpenter holds up a bit of Britain's ransomed heritage |
The money has been raised through private donations, a donation by the Worcestershire Archaeological Society of £1,000 and a grant from the V&A Purchase Grant FundSo the archaeologists are paying detectorists to hand over finds which if found by real archaeologists would go straight into a museum? What kind of a "partnership" is that? A very uneven one which seems to me like no other partnership I've ever heard of.
Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Enthusiastic Owners of Detecting Machines
There is a new collocation going around these days. The phrase "metal detecting enthusiasts" was apparently concocted by the PAS after there were protests (headed incidentally by grassroots action group Heritage Action rather than representatives of the profession) about the BBC calling artefact hunters "amateur archaeologists".
This term now appears in virtually every press article. Google has 412,000 examples of the phrase "metal detecting enthusiasts"and only 41,500 instances of "amateur archaeologists", showing the damaging extent to which 'outreach' by the PAS is pushing archaeology out of public awareness. Archaeologists sit by with folded hands and look on. Very few examples of calling a spade a spade are evidenced, Google the term "artefact hunters" and you will find only about 6000 hits most of them originating from a single writer and his friends in a certain heritage group.
Readers may remember the case of Darren West and Peter Cox, accused of artefact hunting on a legally protected heritage site in Northamptonshire and whose case is now going through the courts. An article about this case is currently at the top of the Google search for the term ('Metal detecting enthusiasts allegedly caught stealing artifacts from ancient monument site in Northamptonshire', Northampton Chronicle and Echo 28 March 2012). There is some discussion of this topic on the metal detecting forums, verging in places on the howlings of a lynch mob*. One of the latest comments is by Tiptree, Essex member detectorist2 who says:
I Don't like the words ( metal-detecting enthusiasts) being used to describe them [smiley img ="Evil or Very Mad"]Well, they have metal detectors, and if they have been going out a lot with them, repeatedly visiting certain sites for example, and enthuastically collecting objects from them with the aid of their "four metal detectors, maps, aerial photos, lock knife, trowel, shovels and a compass", why does that not qualify them for the term "enthusiasts"?
* notable comment: "first of all our legal system is a joke ? the government is a joke ?,the country isn't ours anymore. [...]"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
