Thursday, October 14, 2010

Hooray for Candy: Free the illegal imports!

Candice Jarman informs her readers why she "bothers". It's all about freedom you see. Artefact hunting is legal where it is legal, and illegal where it is illegal, but Barford allegedly has "bedfellows" who want to ban the lot. I asked Candice if she is on the same side as the no-questions-collecting crowd. Of course 'she' will not answer that directly, but has done so indirectly. Among the erosions of "rights' that people like Barford and his "bedfellows" are responsible for was "the repatriation of antiquities from the Getty Museum to Italy" (umm, maybe Candice would like to do a bit of reading about why they went back - if you don't trust my Blog, what about Looting matters or the Los Angeles Times?) and "the attractive, but actually unimportant, mummy case [...] seized by US Customs and repatriated to Egypt". Unimportant I would say is a relative notion. Again the Bournemouth secretary might try and do some reading to discover why it went back (Looting matters or those two Florida lawyer blokes). So these are the "freedoms" the UK metal detectorists' friend wants to support? Trade and import of looted and illegally exported ancient artefacts? We remember the whole Jarman blooging urge was roused by discussion of the sale of the Crosby garrett helment by its metal detectorist finder to a secretive private collector. No wonder the ACCG crowd are gravitating to her blog.

Many UK detectorists are savvy enough to realise that my drawing parallels between the UK and US markets for antiquities, the rhetoric of collecting in the UK and that in the US does artefact hunting in Britain no favours whatsoever. They deny that there are any such parallels. Not so, Candice. Carry on Ms Jarman - drop your "friends" right in it. I am sure they will thank you for it... :>)

She writes:

Why bother? Because we are going to make sure these guys DON’T get their way…

well, JUST like the ACCG.

This is the fourth post on her blog, we have yet to see any demonstration of any misrepresentations or falsehoods on my blog about artefact hunting. Instead through inexperience and naivity it seems to me that the authorette has given a perfect vindication of what I myself see as one of the more damaging (for UK artefact hunting) arguments my blog advances about its wider context. This is not very indicative of joined up thinking on her part.

No comments: