Showing posts with label Candy and the ACCG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Candy and the ACCG. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

UK Metal Detectorist Argues Like a US Coiney

.
On my main blog I try to show the connection between the type of artefact collecting which the Brits label "metal detecting" with the issue of artefact collecting as a whole. For some curious reason the Brits treat them as two separate issues. They are not of course. In countering the false ideologies of the British "pro-metal detecting" crowd, the antics of a group of US "collectors' rights" advocates is very useful. So it is interesting that metal detectorist "Candice Jarman" (not his real name) in a post called "Depressing stuff in Egyptology" manages to make himself sound exactly like the American Council for Cultural Policy. As a collector he is of the opinion that Egyptological publications do their readers a disservice in that they do not carry
"adverts from antiquities dealers on their pages [...] I am sure many Egyptophiles would love to own a genuine but minor Egyptian antiquity".
No doubt. Many do.

He is also incensed that the 'Tutankhamun - His tomb and his treasures" exhibition contains replicas.
This is what we now have to put up with - as some might say, gaudy fakes! They just don't get it do they! [...] One wonders if in the future replicas will be all we have, and to see a genuine Egyptian antiquity, you will need to be well-off enough to afford a plane ticket to Cairo.
Oh, there's an idea.The airfare to Egypt really should not break the bank for the average Brit these days. It's probably easier for a British metal detectorist to get to Cairo than an upper Egyptian villager to get to London or New York. Many of the objects that the travelling exhibition involves are too fragile to travel. Basically it depends on the presentation and audience. If so many people thought like "Candy", such an exhibition would not be viable. These days the exhibitions rely on design to create atmosphere and multimedia to impart information. This can be well done with sensitivity, or can be botched. To what extent are the actual artefacts needed to get over a particular message?

Candy found it "depressing" that the a New York museum is returning artefacts from Tutankhamun's tomb to Egypt:
"As if Egypt did not have enough stuff from the tomb already!"
another return:
"Egyptian museums must have tons of this sort of material stored away in dust-covered boxes in dank musty storerooms, which never see the light of day".
Tired old arguments trotted out by private collectors to justify their part in the no-questions-asked market in antiquities.

"Candy" - referring to the vandalism in the Egyptian Museum - then muses about "repatriation" of antiquities and darkly warns "what can happen to antiquities in Egypt".
IT REALLY IS A NO-BRAINER!!!!!!! EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES ARE PART OF THE COMMON HERITAGE OF MANKIND! THEY WILL BE BETTER PRESERVED FOR FORTHCOMING GENERATIONS IF THEY ARE DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COLLECTIONS! SAY NO TO REPATRIATION!!!!!
Hmm. North American collectors have no compunction in proposing something like this (for they have nothing much older than 1776 which they consider to be their "own" cultural heritage, except Mount Rushmore which is older). It is curious to see it being proposed by a Brit (assuming "Candy" is British born of course, he writes "artifacts"). What would be the consequences of applying such a model of action to the British archaeological heritage? So by this argument, the Snettisham Torcs should be scattered in world museums in Shanghai, Benin City, San Francisco and Anchorage, the Battersea shield should go to Brisbane for safety, the Lindow Bog Body to Lima. The Waterloo Bridge helmet would go to Oslo. The Staffordshire hoard would be partitioned out for safety to China, the Philippines, New Zealand, Dominica and Canada's Northwest territories. This is the argument these buffoons would like to apply to other people's heritage, from Egypt, Greece, Italy, central America, and the Near East. Now the British Museum (through its Portable Antiquities Scheme) is a "partner" of metal detecting artefact collectors - so maybe a bunch of them could get together and do a Portable Antiquities Scheme conference on "the perils of repatriation: artefact hunting and export" in the course of which they could call for the dismantling of the BM's collection of British Antiquities and their scattering to the four corners of the earth so British culture can be better represented in globalised "universal" (encyclopaedic) museums thus safeguarding the artefacts should central London ever be flooded, suffer a nuclear strike or be ravaged by anti-government revolt (or an uprising by a disgruntled ethnic minority) and looting. Let us see how far they get with those arguments.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Four Blokes in One Shed?

.
In reply to my post 'Closing in on "Candice" ...' and obviously with the intent of creating a smokescreen, the person posing as Candice Jarman now claims to be four people, and owes the whole idea to Dorothy King (PhDiva):
Dr King suggested that from the language a group of radical collectors were behind my blog (how I like being called radical!). Exactly right! I like to think of my blog as my blog, but as I am often reminded, it is our blog. You see Mr Barford, although I front the blog, it is a group effort - there are four of us and behind us is an increasing number of correspondents which include metal detectorists, dealers, lawyers, collectors, and yes, Mr Barford, even one or two professional archaeologists - all people fed up with the strident, uncompromising and intolerant agenda of the radical archaeologists!!!!!
This I am pretty sure will turn out to be a lie too. Stylistically, there is a single person behind this, though some of the people sending the "comments" and at least some of the "followers" to the Candice Jarman hate-blog seem to be sock-puppets.

But yes, it is clear that there are "metal detectorists", dealer[s] (we know who), lawyer[s] (we know who), collectors, and "one or two" professional archaeologists (easy to guess who) joining in with the happy slapping. In the typically cowardly manner of the whole pro-collecting milieu, they prefer to see an anonymous guy pretending to be a girl who is now pretending to be four guys doing the dirty work than actually dealing with the arguments themselves. Pathetic.
.

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.