No Paul (again).
What I said was that the colour of the skin on a persons face does not make any difference to the historical record once a piece is ripped from the ground. The Chinese attitude is about nationalism, not preservation of sites. The century of shame China experienced at the hands of foreign powers does play on their mind. It doesn't mean a wealthy Chinese can't buy looted material once it is dynamited from a tomb. He can even build a four story building and charge admission to see themm. I said these items can still yield valuable information on topics that are neglected both in English AND Chinese literature (yes Chinese neglect ancient weapons as a topic).
I said that the demand in the mainland is increasing, making less of these availible in the West (and becoming more acute). This is not good for the 'context' (i.e site preservation) which should be the aim of market regulation.
...& That there is the potential to extract useful data from these objects, even if context is lost, because context will NOT be preserved in all cases.
As an archaeologist it seems odd to me that you imply archaeology is all about context, and without context an artefact is just a 'thing' (a bauble you say).
I worked in archaeological recording of sandhill sites where material stratigraphy was often deflated, hence the artefacts alone were used to date and reconstruct activities. A single fragment of an object can speak volumes of information. I went from the study of sites, and recording surface features through to the study of faunal material and artefacts via this means. I did not collect Chinese artefacts at the time but developed an interest in tooling marks and artefact typology on stone and bone.
If you only want to harp on about the damage done by market collectors then visit the Shanghai museum or the Hong Kong museum of coastal defense where entire galleries were donated by private collectors who purchased in the same manner I do. The same museums have provided C14 dating, X-rays and compositional analysis of the objects on display that was used to explain features of ancient technology.
Does this really mean I am doing "them" a favour by keeping artefacts from Chinese collectors? No, it means I plan to return something back while the oppurtunity exists to find study pieces to draw upon. Once they are no longer availible it will only mean the site destruction is financed by wealthy Chinese only. A good result?.
Does it mean I feel great concern over my part of the situation in China, or that Westerners are responsible for the situation? No, it does not.
Did I say I don't respect foreign laws? Nope again. I walk through customs with a clean conscience and will be able to return. I can share my story with a Chinese policeman and not fear a labour camp.
{Paul Barford says:}..."So, the message going out is that as citizens of developed western states collectors don't have to respect foreign laws, but here we see the further idea embodied that you should have the same RIGHTs as those foreign citizens to your own little bits of THEIR heritage. If the Chinese can collect, so can you, eh? Universalism rools OK, since it means you don't have to play by the other's rules or even recognise they exist....."
Really odd I have to spell these things out for you since you take a single line and ignore the entire paragraph of discussion around it.
I can cut and paste my exact words which say the same as I explained above, or you can go back and check what I said.
You talk a great amount of pompous drivel. Paul "wrong-end-of-the stick" Barford.
If more collectors on this forum don't engage in your threads don't be fooled into thinking they are busy "finding a safe hiding place" for their collections either.
Re: A Safe Hiding Place.
Posted by: "Paul Barford" pbarford@pro.onet.pl paul_barford
Wed May 28, 2008 10:00 pm (PDT)
Kenneth Blair writes:
> But I am talking to you, not Paul. <
Well actually you are not writing to him off-list so in fact you are addressing us all. Perhaps you think this hobby is practiced by mainly by male dockyard workers and lorrydrivers, so you don't have to observe the standards of decorum and language use that you would if there was a chance ladies and minors might be visiting the forum.
> Certainly an ignoramus like yourself is unlikely to provide
> any new revelation to me about the situation in China.<
Who was it who was berating me for "not listening" to other opinions?
It seems to me reading all this, that what in fact you are "saving" archaeological items taken from Chinese soil from is falling into the hands of Chinese collectors. This is what you describe in an earlier message as a "rather concerning trend". You write "Less and less of these are about for Westerners".
So, the message going out is that as citizens of developed western states collectors don't have to respect foreign laws, but here we see the further idea embodied that you should have the same RIGHTs as those foreign citizens to your own little bits of THEIR heritage. If the Chinese can collect, so can you, eh? Universalism rools OK, since it means you don't have to play by the other's rules or even recognise they exist.
I suggest adding something to the Responsible Collectors' Code on the lines of having a thought for the needs of the citizens of the "source countries" with regard to their own heritage whether or not they are collectors.
Paul Barford
> But I am talking to you, not Paul. <
Well actually you are not writing to him off-list so in fact you are addressing us all. Perhaps you think this hobby is practiced by mainly by male dockyard workers and lorrydrivers, so you don't have to observe the standards of decorum and language use that you would if there was a chance ladies and minors might be visiting the forum.
> Certainly an ignoramus like yourself is unlikely to provide
> any new revelation to me about the situation in China.<
Who was it who was berating me for "not listening" to other opinions?
It seems to me reading all this, that what in fact you are "saving" archaeological items taken from Chinese soil from is falling into the hands of Chinese collectors. This is what you describe in an earlier message as a "rather concerning trend". You write "Less and less of these are about for Westerners".
So, the message going out is that as citizens of developed western states collectors don't have to respect foreign laws, but here we see the further idea embodied that you should have the same RIGHTs as those foreign citizens to your own little bits of THEIR heritage. If the Chinese can collect, so can you, eh? Universalism rools OK, since it means you don't have to play by the other's rules or even recognise they exist.
I suggest adding something to the Responsible Collectors' Code on the lines of having a thought for the needs of the citizens of the "source countries" with regard to their own heritage whether or not they are collectors.
Paul Barford
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.__._,_.___
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
__,_._,___
