> it take time to compose this type of response properly.<
And how would we define "this type of post"? Into which category of
literature would it fall?
It seems to be some form of textual exgesis intended primarily to discredit
the author of the examined material.
It omits however the context in which the message arose (i.e., not only as a
response to Steve Steven's post but the fact that this in turn was replying
to others, including my earlier ones in the same thread). Obviously to do a
proper objective analysis of any source, you need to take into account the
context, "Sitz im Leben", that is taking into account why I responded in the
way I did to Steven's reply to a point I had earlier made. Simply selecting
extracts out of that context and trying to impose a different meaning on
them, ignoring the context makes of this exercise simplistic and
propagandistic eisegesis.
Mr Kokotailo asserts:
> If Mr. Barford were to approach analysis of archeological
> data with these same techniques, his work in that field
> would be invalidated.<
Indeed, but then the analysis of archaeological data, by definition,
involves taking into account the context, in that methodology of studying a
phenomenon, it is only the full context which gives individual observations
a framework within which they can be more reliably interpreted.
I realise that the notion of anyone wanting to take into account anything
like a "context" (except the one they themselves impose on the viewer) is
abhorrent to some dealers in portable antiquities, they prefer people to
believe that the isolated entity "speaks for itself" (like Welsh's
"numismatic [sic] context"). I assume that not all here appreciate a few
dealers loudly telling them what they should and should not believe.
We have a discussion going on here on this list about defining responsible
collecting, about the need to preserve information about the provenience of
finds which so far dealers like Mr Kokotailo have been selling like
potatoes. As might be predicted, several dealers and collectors here are
doing everything they can to deflect attention from it, to derail the
discussions, and to discredit those who support this idea. Its typical of
course, and we all think we know why they do it.
Robert Kokotailo writes:
> I will not debate Mr. Barford on the issues, but rather
> critique what he wrote about Mr. Stevens.<
Well, why? Why will the antiquities dealer Robert Kokotailo NOT debate the
issues involving export licences (which is what Steve Stevens was doing in a
thread called "Above the laws (Revised version)")? Why ? [Will Jean Lacoutre
receive an answer to the question posed on 25th, is there a reason why it is
being ignored?]
Instead Mr Kokotailo is wasting his own time trying to pick holes in my use
of quotation marks, my time by him trying to provoke me to answer his
accusations, and yours reading it.
It seems to me that there are far more edifying things to discuss on a forum
on ancient artefacts and ancient artefact collecting than how many degrees
Paul Barford has got and from which universities and what kind of work
permits he has or has not had. Why actually, is there a topic here at all
"About Mr. Barford" (sic) on a moderated forum? And is it actually "about"
Mr Barford, or is it about Mr Kokotailo for some reason trying to "have a
go" at Mr Barford?
Since he says has read my written work (for he says he has ascertained that
"none" of them contains the information on my "credentials" (sic) he was
looking for), Mr Kokotailo will know my 1998 article: 'Przeszlosc Anglii dla
terazniejszosci i przyszlosci [England's past for the present and future].'
[in:] Z. Kobylinski (ed.) "Ochrona dziedzictwa archeologicznego w Europie",
Warsaw, pp. 143-175 which amply answers his first point about how I see
public attitudes to the past in Britain. He can supplement it by the text
written two years later (2000): 'Archeolodzy, amatorzy i kolekcjonerzy w
Anglii [Amateur archaeologists and collectors in England]' Archeologia Zywa
Nr 4 (13) 99/2000, pp 41-43 which touches on this and the next block of
issues he raises.
His critique is mostly about what I said about the workings of the 1996
Treasure Act in the UK. This has of course been the subject of close
scrutiny, wide discussion in a number of venues within the UK, metal
detecting forums, in archaeological publications and conferences. I don't
know how much of this discussion Mr Kokotailo is familiar with, but I
certainly do not recall him ever taking part in any of those I have been
involved in over the past eight years. And it is in the context of those
discussions that MY reply to Mr Stevens should be seen. What Mr Kokotailo,
apparently without that experience and knowledge, makes of it is his
problem, and its up to you whether you accept his assessment of it.
I think, until he makes a second post on the subject, we are entirely
justified in understanding what Steve Stevens wrote here about the Treasure
Process in Britain as an example of bad antiquities laws; he is scathing
about the time it takes to get the reward (he calls it a "fee") and how much
you get in the UK for OBEYING THE LAW. Let us be clear about that. Its a
point Mr Kokotailo omits to mention in his attempted analysis of my reply,
and of course in a thread called "above the law" it is actually a key part
of what I wrote about.
> I would also be interested in specific cases.<
I have a feeling I know from the UK metal detecting forums and other sources
which specific case was the main prompt to the comments Mr Stevens reported
at second hand here, but I am not going to comment on it unless Mr Stevens
wants to tell us. Its not an edifying story.
> 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.<
With respect, you have obviously not understood the point, but I suspect
that is because you don't know the context, nor thought why the Treasure Act
takes the form it does. I am not at all "twisting words", the point is Mr
Stecvens DOES see just the financial aspect of this, when the Act was not
set up to be a source of easy income for Treasure Hunters at public expense.
It was set up to rescue important elements of the national heritage FROM
treasure hunters and collectors for public benefit. If you still don't
understand the background to my comments, then I suggest you read up about
it before criticising those who know somewhat more than you seem to about
its background, function and drawbacks. Its not actually my obligation to
educate you.
> I would be curious to hear if there is any published
> information on this,<
Yes of course there is !!! You really are not exactly in the best position
to criticise if you do not know that. Ask Roger Bland, he'll send you some
of their publications.
> An interesting statement. How exactly does Mr. Barford
> know how the majority of British artefact hunters feel about
> this. <
Well how do you think? There is a considerable amount of discussion on the
metal detecting forums and in the two main hobby magazines and a lot of
additional material about these matters. British metal detectorists are very
vociferous about what they think about the way they are treated by "the
establishment" and what the establishment should be doing FOR them. Sound
familiar?
I wrote nothing about placing "a gag order on Roger Bland" which Kokotailo
insists "certainly needs to be elaborated on". I reported that he was out of
his office and for that reason was not able to respond himself to the fact
that his Department was being criticised here, though I notified him of it.
With the current situation of the whole scheme so delicate (as members of
this list probably know), its only fair he should know. Whether or not he
feels it worth worrying about what Mr Stevens or you think when he gets back
to his computer is another matter.
Shock-horror:
> 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. <
Well its a JOLLY good job you read both bits and REALISED the one was an
extract from the other !! How jolly clever of you!!. Hmmm. On the other hand
do you not think that having quoted it above, for brevity I merely referred
to that in what I wrote below?? No? Clutching at straws here Mr Kokotailo.
> 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.<
See above. I think my files on this are about a metre and a half of shelf,
not counting what's in boxes in the cellar. Most of it is from the last
eight years, but some of it going back to the mid 1970s.
> 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.<
and your text called "About Mr. Barford" is an example of what, in fact?
Certainly the objective observer of this forum would be forgiven for
assessing as "hostile" the reception here by some of you to the suggestion
that the notion of "responsible collecting" needs defining and that export
of antiquities from source countries should involve the use of export
licences and not a nod-and-a-wink methods. The question is to what degree do
the "some" represent the views of the whole collecting community, and to
what degree is their apparent hostility due to the fact that they feel it
should?
Mr Kokotailo, referring to Sun Tzu, apparently believes he is at war. What
is it he is trying to defend and what from?
> I believe from my discussion above you can see why I feel
> Mr. Barford is the enemy <
Oh dear. You probably think I have a big "666" tatooed on my forehead, right
above the big red swastika.
Work it out for yourselves. I say that there is a place for responsible
collecting alongside the needs of the sustainable use and preservation of
what remains of the world's archaeological heritage. To achieve that
collectors clearly need an ethical and reflective approach and openness and
ACCOUNTABILITY in the trade. Now, that idea appeals to some people here, and
others are rejecting it. They say there are mysterious reasons why
accounability is impossible, even though they all claim to run legitimate
businesses. I think we can all see who falls into which group, and probably
have a few subjective impressions as to why there might be resistance to
these ideas.
So if we are searching for enemies, the question remains, who or what is the
"enemy" of the unsatisfactory status quo, who or what is the "enemy" of the
threatened remains of the archaeological record, and who or what is the
"enemy" of the responsible way forward for collecting?
Paul Barford
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Ancientartifacts-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Ancientartifacts-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Ancientartifacts-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
