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.

Candy, Clubbers and the Archaeobozos

.
The bloke who calls himself "Candice" informs his readers that, despite a break of several months since the last post on the "People's Archaeology (sic) Blog", he has not given up in his quest to present the true face of artefact hunting and collecting (which is what he considers to be "People's Archaeology").

He writes:

"People in our club say to me "Why bother with your blog....why waste your time....Barford is no threat to the hobby...." Maybe they are right, and to be truthful having the views of the 'radical archaeologists' out of my life for a couple of months has been rather nice".

Now what "club" would that be Mr Candice? The blogger Candice has denied he is a metal detectorist (in the blog's profile which was later edited), but still admits to having friends that are. So one would presume this is not a local metal detecting club. This leaves the identity of the "club" concerned unknown. Or perhaps Mr Candice has not written on his blog so long, he has forgotten who he was pretending to be.

Anyway "Candice" is concerned to assure everyone how much "support" he is receiving, from hobbyists (sic) and collectors (who we therefore understand are not hobbyists?) and does not omit to say: "And thank you too, all my Turkish friends, for the virtual bouquets - you really are darlings".

As is frequently the case on his blog, "Candice" also goes out of his way again to mention all the support he's getting

from those archaeologists who tell me "not all archaeologists feel as Paul Barford does. I'm glad someone is speaking up. Paul is absolutely not representative of even a fraction of archaeologists...."

They would be British archaeologists I guess. I think in general, yes, these that support collecting are glad that somebody else speaks up for them - they are not very good at doing it for themselves. Neither are those that oppose collecting (I get mails from them, with pathetic wimpish excuses why they don't feel able to speak up and saying how 'glad' they are I do). So British archaeology is largely divided into three silent camps, those who write to "Candy", those who write to "Barford", and those who sit quiet and say nowt. Then there is the fourth silent group, the PAS who steadfastly refuses to actually engage with the wider debate and archaeological/heritage management issues.

Note that the anonymous supportive archaeologist quoted by "Candy" uses the word "feel" rather than "think". That's pretty symptomatic of the archaeologists one comes across who tentatively express a sympathy for artefact hunters and collectors. It seems to me that they must avoid thinking the issues through down to the level of the principles of archaeological resource conservation, and continually fail to make any attempt to articulate in any detail why they are not applicable in this case. The end result is glib and unreflexive archaeo-garble like that produced by UCL's Gabriel Moshenska in a recent debate.

So certainly "not all [British] archaeologists [think about this issue] as Paul Barford does" would be a more accurate expression of the facts I feel. The difference between us is I am perfectly willing to enter into debate with those who think differently on these matters, while the supporters of artefact hunting are notably silent, preferring to leave the dialogue up to the pigeons cooing in Bloomsbury Square and pseudonymous spokesmen like "Candice". So until they find a voice of their own, we'll have to judge whether "not even a fraction" is wishful thinking by an archaeologist desperate to believe their position ("feeling") is not mistaken, or whether it has a basis in fact. Maybe the IFA could seek and publish some of the opposing opinions and then poll the profession?

WATCH OUT, Candice is Out to Get Ya!

.[category: metal detectorist lobby nonsense]

As Candice Jarman announces on his hate-blog:

Damien Huffer, aka Mr Barford Jnr, who also has an anti-collecting blog, which has run for three times as long as this one, has just 3 followers! Oh dear Damien - but maybe more on this gentleman later!

We see here the usual tekkie/collector technique of dealing with criticism, label it "anti-collecting" and attack the person of the author to the general applause of other oafish collectors who apparently see no alternative to such behaviour.

Candice's First Conquest...

One "Dusty" on the Rally.UK forum has noticed there is a blog by Candice Jarman about Paul Barford and decides to draw other artefact hunters' attention to it with all the high-school eloquence he can muster:

this Candy person really don't like this Barford and after reading some of barford papers I can see why hes a compulsive weirdo and liar he makes thing up as he gos along - good luck Candy you need it with that pratt.

"Dusty" can apparently read, while "Swarfy" is quite taken with the photograph:

Candy certainly dont like im does she! mind you I would report everything to her if she was Essex based wouldnt you !!

Mr Swarfy is so excited that Candice might be an FLO that he forgot his punctuation. "Rod1" (who "does it for the buzzzz") agrees in a thoughtful contribution exhibiting equal command of the English language:

get her out every day if pos that what i call happy hunting makes detecting and finds a lot beter to show her what you have? good find dusty didnt see that paul barford will have a look again when candys not on there he he ha ha!

Now, really folks I am by no means "making up these quotes as I go along"; there really are such people out there and they have metal detectors and artefact collections and current British policies mean that the fate of a large part of the archaeological heritage is in their hands.

Get on with it...

.

"Here’s a pic of Mr Barford enjoying a well-earned beer" saith Candice, but no, wait ("This is Mr Barford - Part 1")...

"a correspondent tells me that the man in the picture to the left with his back to us is Mr Barford. Well, it looks possible and, of course, we know Mr Barford is the master of misinformation".

And Candice is obviously master of nowt. It beats me how he can see that the person shown in a photo with his back to the camera behind another person is "enjoying a well-earned beer" like the good-looking guy relaxing in the centre of the shot. Or that anyone can recognise the back of somebody's head (or is it the butt which was recognised?). What does he mean by "it looks possible"?

Perhaps the person being portrayed by the photographer is the other one facing the camera, but on the right of the guy in the centre of the photo? Stocky come-and-fight me stance and archie sweater, is that not the blogger in question? He looks like the sort of person who'd be rude about collectors doesn't he? Though why would Candice say that this person is "enjoying a well-earned beer" when he is not?Pathetic. Maybe we could cut the crap and instead of simply suggesting "of course, we know Mr Barford is the master of misinformation", Candice could get on with discussing the alleged distortions in what I say about portable antiquity collecting. Can he do that? I think we are all beginning to have our doubts about that.
.

Candy on my "Tekkie Nonsense Ghetto Blog"

.
Any attempt to engage UK metal detectorists in serious discussion about anything remotely connected with ethical collecting will inevitably lead to them trying to deflect the discussion onto all sorts of inflammatory side issues. They cannot focus on the topic in question for more than eight minutes. This is the case on archaeological forums whenever the topic strays beyond patting detectorists on the head and calling them "partner", and forum members are heartily sick of it and tend to avoid talking to or about artefact hunters over there. That was one of the reasons I decided to start up a separate blog of my own devoted to artefact hunting and collecting. But then as was only inevitable, the tekkie nonsense started there too, so I decided to open a parallel one to deal with it in a separate venue to avoid the main blog getting clogged up with minutiae.

Candice Jarman does not like this, she calls this "Metal Detecting" side issues blog one "specifically dedicated to rubbishing metal detector users". She fails to note that this is by and large merely the place where I answer those who are themselves trying to use diversionary tactics to "rubbish" my main blog, the one people read. So yes, here her own nonsense is discussed, very little of it has merited discussion on the main blog since she does not deal with any substantive "portable antiquity collecting and heritage issues", merely snipes from the sidelines.

She observes:

If you take a look at his earlier posts on this blog, you will see how he rants and raves to the pitch of total silliness.

Quite, the detectorist nonsense to which I am replying there is totally silly (Buffy, Sheddy and all the rest), which is why it is discussed over here in the same terms and with the ridicule it deserves and not on the main blog.

One point to note is that this blog has adverts

and then goes on the speculate by the huge income I must be getting from them on a blog nobody reads. Hmm. "Mr Barford’s income" is zero, because the adverts come with a widget (National Geographic, Treasures and Artifacts) which I installed for fun which flashes pictures of "antiquities" which seemed in theme with the blog. I think Mr Google gets the revenue for the adverts, I get pretty pictures to liven up a boring blog about tekkie buffoonery. Seems a fair deal to me.

Illustrating the words

.
Candice 'Gotcha' Jarman (who is probably a bloke) is disturbed by the fact that I try to make the pages of my texts about portable antiquites issues more palatable by putting pictures on them. Candice reckons there is something wrong with that:

Mr Barford regards the picking up of a Roman coin from a field as theft ...

wait, stop right there, I bet she cannot show anyone where I said that this is what I think:

...and yet he is happy to freely appropriate other people's artwork to illustrate his blog. If he see's an image on the internet, then he regards it as free for his taking - never mind the rights of struggling artists and designers. Does Mr Barford pay royalties to the owners of the images he is so happy to steal? Perhaps he would like to tell us.

No I do not. In the same way as she herself does not for those which she has posted up on her own blog, those for example that purport to show me (the copyright of which belongs to three different people) or the one she took from my Facebook profile. The artwork she uses with the mice has been stolen from the now-defunct "Barfordisation" (sic) blog by somebody calling himself "Bufet the Phantom Pie Slayer" who I presume drew them himself. In none of these cases does Candice indicate the source from which she took these pictures. I am assuming the reason why "she" does not feel the need to do this with Buffy's artwork is that she's really giving out the message that "Buffy is Back!".

If she would check the captions of each of the illustrations I use (unless I have forgotten which can of course happen) the source is given on the first use. I do not always give the source on the second use of the same vignette. In a number of cases where it seemed important to do so, I have contacted the owners of an image and obtained their permission to use them. In none was permission refused and I have had some nice correspondence with people about the issues raised by the posts in which I have used their illustrations. In many cases it seems the illustrations come from blogs where the blogger does no indicate where they got them from, so I link to them.

Also at the very beginning of my blog is a statement about the use of photos which I believe comes under 'Fair use'. I do however explicitly state that if anyone has an issue with my use of material to which they have the copyright to contact me and I will take it down.

In fact I have only been asked to do this twice. Once was when "Sheddy" Lincoln a Canvey Island garden shed retailer (with a penchant for sending Polish policemen dog excreta in a box through the post) made a fuss about a photo I reproduced showing the PAS table at a rally. He initially wanted me to pay him royalties for using it, but then did not. At the same time however the PAS lady which it showed (whom he'd photographed without her permission) also requested me to take it down. Her reasoning was that it did not show the PAS in the best light and the public clearly has not the right to know what a PAS lady in the middle of a field doing her liaison looks like. I took it down and started this blog (look what its really called) and put a white fluffy bunny picture on my blog.

Obviously UK metal detectorists are more concerned about the pictures I put on my blog than the words that surround them, here's another one.

There's Fieldwork and there's Fieldwork: What does Candy Know about it?

.
"Candice Jarman" says 'she' is a secretary who has "metal detectorist" friends and is aided by the members of the Yahoo so-called "responsible collecting" forum run by Tim Haines. Both are apparently aiding and encouraging her to write a "Paul Barford - Heritage - The Truth" blog. The author calls me “the Embarrassment of antiquities conservation” and adds: "don’t his supporters realise that he convinces no-one and just damages their cause by his strident, crass, dismissive posts rubbishing all those who dare to voice an alternative view". So she has set out to try and "rubbish" what she says are "misrepresentations of the truth", "distortions of the facts" to further an "anti-detecting, anti-collecting, anti-PAS agenda". She has not got very far however with that task, dithering about trying to find photographs of "what Paul Barford looks like" - as if it mattered to my ability to write about no-questions-asked collecting.

One might wonder about a secretary's ability to be able to address any of the archaeological issues I raise, given her all-too-apparent total lack of any knowledge about the discipline. This is clearly revealed by 'her' comment to one of the photos that she has obviously been told shows me [I suspect I know by whom, and that person has never met me either]:

Here is another picture of Mr Barford doing archaeology it seems. The public kept at a respectful distance.....

Regardless of who is visible in the photo, what is actually shown is an exhumation to obtain a DNA sample carried out in 1998 in central Poland by an experienced forensic anthropological team from the United States. It was carried out under and in full compliance with a licence issued by the Polish Church and all relevant local legislation, the archaeologists are there as support to the anthropologists. The aim was not the full archaeological excavation of a grave of 1864, and neither was I in charge of this project. If I had been, there would have been more than a police-tape barrier, but screens as is usual in such exhumations, out of respect for the deceased. In this case however the public could only see the outside of the vault not what was hidden deep in its dark interior. Forensic exhumations of human remains - and especially not those in the state these were - are not places for gawkers. I think if she knew anything about it at all, Ms Jarman would be aware that a nineteenth century burial ground clearance or murder scene investigation in even in Great Britain is not a ghoulish spectacle they sell tickets for gawkers and bystanders to go and watch.

So yes, in any exhumation of this nature, the public would be kept at a truly respectful distance.*

Not like the metal detecting page I was reading on Thursday written by somebody 'Candice' may even know (as it was from near where 'she' says she lives), where the writer is laughing about the fragments of a human skull shown - that his detecting mate had dug roughly through a human skeleton "thinking it was a dog". Now that is what I call really "disturbing the dead" and grave robbing - they even took the skull home. What "fun", eh Candy? What a wonderful advertisement for "responsible" artefact hunting in the UK.

[*] Note: the photo she uses was taken with a long focal length lens and (among other things) in order to give the team room to work, the distance between the barrier and open vault was in fact greater than it appears.
.

SO? Barford Drinks Beer, is that a Sin Candice? Don't metal Detectorists Drink Beer then?

.
Well Candice Jarman really takes the biscuit. In her latest effort to avoid addressing the various cultural property issues raised in my blog ("This is Mr Barford - Part 1" ), the solicitor's secretary now shows some 1998 photos of me, probably with the intention of making it easier for the criminal element to identify me next time I am involved in an antiquities 'sting'. As for the snide comment:

"Here’s a pic of Mr Barford enjoying a well-earned beer (it must be thirsty work disturbing the dead) [...] we suspect he is plumper and greyer (even baldier) now.

There are of course no "dead" to disturb in a flying school which is where her photo was taken.

What is it with you people? When are we going to see you discussing issues of merit instead of the superficial peripheral ones?

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.

Wayne Weighs In and Sides with Candice

Candice Jarman knows how to gain friends and make enemies. US coiney Lobbyist Wayne Sayles has come across her blog and has sent a message of encouragement. He admits that when it comes to my discussions of no-questions-asked collecting: "I simply consider the source and ignore his rants". You see, he explains Paul Barford, critic of the ACCG which he heads "has no standing in archaeology". But he fails to note that Candice criticises other archaeologists too, Barford, Gill and Renfrew. So how would Sayles dismiss them, for surely it would not be by denying that any of them have any "standing" in archaeology? How odd that Sayles however, who has no "standing" in the State department freely criticises it in the same terms as I use to address the no-questions-asked trading and collecting activities of his members. How odd to see the amateur student of history suddenly refer to "authority" (or lack of it) as the key argument whether or not words are worth heeding - surely the underlying idea of an avocational (independent) student of the past is the rejection of all such institutionalised authority.

Thus, neither Sayles nor Candice Jarman have any "standing" in archaeology either but feel wholly and uniquely qualified to dismiss it as governed by fear and controlled by the "radicals" and to cast aspersions on the motivation of all and any professional archaeologists concerned about looting. Despite her general lack of qualifications for such a task, Sayles throws her to the lions and encourages the secretary Candy:

If you focus on combating his disgusting rhetoric with truths, you will have done the world a great service.

So he himself is unable to do it, or get one of his coiney-Guild minions to do it, but wants to see a young inexperienced girl do the job for him. So, Candice, never mind researching how many degrees I have and from where, since I have no "standing", let us see my "disgusting rhetoric" contrasted with "the truths" about no-questions-asked collecting. Please, the Executive Director of the Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild does not want to put me straight, you do it. Saves him the work, he can get on with just selling the coins he does.

Candy, since you tell us the artefacts you collect are all recorded by the PAS, would YOU buy artefacts from this man Wayne Sayles? He obviously thinks you are on the same side. Are you? The same side as Wayne Sayles and Peter Tompa, John Hooker,? Are you, Candice?

Candice "People do not care"

Candice Jarman, secretary in UK solicitor's firm who claims she is passionate about history says: For once Paul Barford is right!
Yes, Mr Barford, most people just don't care. She is referring to my article about the manner in which the US Cultural property Advisory Committee carries out its "public consultations". I was referring of course to the American public. I find it odd though that this woman can so easily admit that this is the case, supposedly she started her blog because she is "passionate about archaeology and history" and is - according to her own words - fighting for what?

I passionately believe that archaeology belongs to the people - to all of us - and not just to archaeologists. [...] In todays straightened times(sic), can we afford to support so many University Archaeology Departments and Archaeology Units from the public purse? Are you fed up with the 'radical archaeologists' telling you what you should do and how you should think? If YES, then send your news and views to candicejarman@[...] LET'S MAKE SURE OUR VOICE IS HEARD!

So "OUR" is whose voice if "the people do not care" Ms Jarman? Either they are behind you when you are fighting for their (equal?) access to it, or they do not care and you are just fighting for yourself, so you can buy more dugup "bronze age palstaves and socketted axes" on the open market. Which is it?