I will not debate Mr. Barford on the issues, but rather critique what he wrote about Mr. Stevens. For those that have not read Mr. Stevens' words, here is a link to Mr. Stevens' posting to which Mr. Barford was responding :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/42622
Date: Mon May 26, 2008 1:24 pm (Paul Barford) wrote :
From what he writes here, Steve Stevens appears to have convinced himself he
lives in a nation of cultural philistines and moral pygmies who (like some
natives of other source countries are reputed to have) only have a care for
the day-to-day
Mr. Barford has just shown he sees all Britons who are concerned only with their own day-to-day life, as "cultural philistines and moral pygmies". This is an incredibly narrow minded, insensitive and egocentric view of the world.
and, unlike them, he is one of a small cultured elite which
really appreciates and understands the value of the antiquities he owns. We
seem to have heard that somewhere before.
There is absolutely nothing of this nature in Mr. Stevens' posting. This is a total fabrication designed to evoke a response. Go back to the link above, check for yourself and see if Mr. Stevens said anything of this nature.
In other words, he treats the laws of Britain as more of those "bad
antiquities laws" which do not serve the people of Britain. Well, we seem to
have heard that before too.
In my opinion the current British antiquities laws are probably the best of there type in the world, but they are not perfect and Mr. Stevens has pointed out several aspects of why he feels they are imperfect and sometimes improperly applied. But no where does Mr. Stevens use the term "bad antiquities laws" which is what Mr. Barford has claimed Mr. Stevens did via putting the words in quotation marks. Another fabrication.
Let's take a look at one aspect of those "bad laws". Sadly Roger Bland is
out of his office so cannot answer the accusations levelled at the Treasure
process himself.
It would appear Mr. Barford believes that being out of office places a gag order on Roger Bland. That certainly needs to be elaborated on. And again, there are those quotation marks around "bad laws".
I'd draw attention to the fact that this 'right to own' antiquities which Mr
Stevens asserts comes to him from an extraordinary (in the context of others
worldwide) legislation in the UK which allows anyone literally to take a
spade to almost any archaeological site in the kingdom (excluding a very
small proportion specifically protected by law) and keep [or sell or throw
away] almost everything they find there. All the collector is asked to do in
most of the UK is report a small group of items legally defined as Treasure
(1996 act), and report anything they wish to send out of the country.
Exactly where in his post does Mr. Stevens "assert" his "right to own" antiquities. In fact, Mr. Stevens actually says :
"But, as the law stands, all treasure trove belongs to the Crown and when discovered, is subject to an inquest at a coroners court."
I read as exactly the opposite of what Mr. Barford would have you believe Mr. Stevens wrote. Calling attention to what he sees as problems with the treasure trove process, does not amount to an assertion of his "right to own".
I suspect Mr. Stevens does feel a right to own some objects, and he clearly does say he owns some. That is an issue of property rights as much as it is of the antiquities laws.
It does not seem much to ask does it? But no, oh no, that's not good enough
for Mr Stevens and his mates. In many countries when you report
archaeological finds you do not get rewarded with the market value. In some
you don't get any money at all. In Britain, if an item is declared Treasure
AND there is actually a museum willing to buy it (for if not, you get it
back anyway), you and the landowner get the full market value established by
the Treasure Valuation Committee. Their valuation is in addition subject to
contest and appeal. I do not understand why Mr Stevens asserts it is
otherwise and to which specific cases he is referring.
Here Mr. Barford is commenting on something Mr. Stevens actually did say. I would also be interested in specific cases.
So I really do not know what Mr Stevens is talking about when he says:
> They collectively said that it was almost like
> 'being interfered with' and that they were left
> feeling that they had come up against the
> 'establishment' that had connived to fleece
> them. They were kept waiting a ridiculous
> length of time for the hearing and were
> eventually paid a fee that was a fraction of the
> market value. The main beneficiary being the
> Treasury and Museums.<
The "main beneficiary" of Treasure inquests Mr Stevens is the British
public. The objects retained are their heritage (too). The objects held in
thousands of ephemeral domestic artefact hunters' collections is also,
however much the metal detecting fraternity prefers to forget that.
Here Mr. Barford is again twisting words. Mr. Stevens appears to be discussing the financial aspects of who benefits from the process, not the right or wrong of cultural aspects of the process. Mr. Barford is replying as if it were the cultural aspects only.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the cultural aspects, but it should be clear that it is a separate issue. Here, we might remember, private collectors, under the UK law, can only retain recent finds that the museums do not want or need.
Last year a substantial number of thousands of pounds (Bland will have the
actual statistics) of public money are spent each year rewarding finders
(its not a "Fee" !!!) for objects acquired by public collections for
everyone's benefit.
No one doubts that happened. I would be curious to hear if there is any published information on this, as it might clear up some of the questions Mr. Stevens raised.
In effect, this is public money being used to support treasure hunting on
archaeological sites. Britain is almost unique in this respect, and it costs
the state budget considerable sums of money each year. Which of course the
majority of British artefact hunters do not in the slightest appreciate,
they want more, as Mr Stevens shows.
An interesting statement. How exactly does Mr. Barford know how the majority of British artefact hunters feel about this. Mr. Stevens' comments were about what is fair than about wanting more.
I don't know about "being interefered with", the inquest is about the
object, not the finder so really am in no position to even guess what the
problem was. It seems not very much to ask if the British 'establishment' is
going to give a guy a few thousand quid of public money, to ask first a few
questions about his title to the find. Where's the problem? The time taken
to process these cases is due to the Coroner having other tasks than just
handing out public money to Treasure hunters.
Here we see an example of an incomplete quote, taking out of context, in an attempt to turn it into something it is not. What Mr. Stevens actually said was :
"They collectively said that it was almost like 'being interfered with'"
There is a huge difference between saying they were "being interfaced with" and saying "it was almost like being interfered with". Mr. Barford even quotes the entire text and context above where that suited him, but incompletely here when he wants it to mean something more than it did.
Mr Stevens moans:
> You may call this law 'for the common good'
> but to me it seems to be too much to the
> detriment of the individual.<
An individual that in almost any other country would not get half the
appreciation or cash as in the UK. And yet, that's clearly NOT ENOUGH for
the British metal detectorist.
I will give Mr. Barford this one. Mr. Stevens did say that, although I not happy about Mr. Barfords' statement "Mr. Stevens moans".
Of course what the REAL problem is here, and what Mr Stevens does not say is
that the reason that the metal detectorist does not get the "full market
value" is that award is split (usually 50:50) with the owner of the land on
which the find was made. Seems fair enough. In fact, ALL the archaeological
finds in the land (and ALL proceeds from their sale) belong 100% to them,
NOT the metal detectorist, unless they have a private agreement otherwise.
And here at least Mr. Barford admits that Mr. Stevens did not say this. But if not, who did? It is a very derogatory statement about metal detectorists and needs to be substantiated, so I would like to know from whom Mr. Barford is claiming these words originate.
"Bad laws"? Or is this a case of giving an inch and immediately a mile is
demanded?
Why actually should there be any hostility at all to the idea that Britain's
antiquities laws should be respected by collectors of portable antiquities?
I would be curious to know if Mr. Barford feels that any discussion which does not support his views on these laws amounts to hostility.
I believe from my discussion above you can see why I feel Mr. Barford is the enemy and why, in my original post about him a few days ago, I wrote:
"That being said, you all need to know a little about who and what you are dealing with. Based on his activities on other lists, it is my opinion that Mr. Barford is possibly the single most dedicated "anti-collector" advocate you will ever encounter on a forum of this type".
I believe there is nothing you can say to him that will change his stance on this. He believes very firmly the collector community must be stopped at all costs. No discussion will change his mind on this. No matter how well presented and thought out your arguments for collecting, he will not accept them, but "twist and turn your arguments against you to further his goals". If Mr. Barford were to approach analysis of archeological data with these same techniques, his work in that field would be invalidated. Why should we find it acceptable here.
Mr. Barford earlier commented on my researching his background, wondering why I would do so. I am sure an educated man like Mr. Barford will be familiar with the writings of Sun Tzu, in which the answer lies.
Robert Kokotailo
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
