Only "Western archaeological concerns"?

.
Stepping into the role of a political commentator, Californian antiquity dealer Dave Welsh solemnly intones:

Whatever one's perspective regarding Libyan governmental legitimacy, such a state of flux is disturbing. In such circumstances there is always some risk that Western archaeological concerns may not be respected. At this point it appears that all that can be hoped for is that a Libyan regime will emerge which is sympathetic to Western archaeological concerns.

Why "western"? Is the "west" the only home of archaeologists who might be concerned about anything? Do brown skinned people in African countries not count for anything in the US antiquity dealers' world-view?

It seems that when it comes down to it the collectors who claim to be so culturally cosmopolitan which justifies their ripping off other people's cultural heritage are in fact just as ethnically biased as can be when their guard is down.

Mayhem and Disruption Among Yahoo's "Responsible Collectors"

Tim Haines, who runs Yahoo's AncientArtifacts forum for them says he appreciates my contributions, but is scared what would happen if they (he) allowed me back...

Altogether I'm not too worried about a bit of low level Barford. I would not wish to censor the group so that his views do not appear in it at all: as members well know I am a strong believer in free speech. Paul Barford did in fact provide a very valuable contribution to this group and raised awareness of the ethics of antiquities collecting enormously here.
Having said that, the huge disruption which was caused by his presence here outweighed the value of his contribution to such an extent that his continued membership of the group was simply not a viable option, and he will certainly not be reinstated.

Well, it is not wholly clear from this, is it, whether he is saying that I disrupted his group by criticising no-questions-asked collecting, or whether he was unable to control his "responsible collector" members and prevent THEM from disrupting the forum when I did. Anyone who cares to log on and look through the archives will, I trust easily discover that it is actually the latter. As he admitted to me, he had had enough of "the bickering and bitching of others caused by your posts and your presence". The root of a lot of the problems with the Ancient Artifacts discussion list is poor list leadership on Haines' part. Anyone who cares to log on and look through the archives will find this a frequently expressed opinion among members whenever one of the frequent unpleasant arguments breaks out on various topics (often with nationalist overtones in this international group) - and yet Haines hangs on.

Obviously for Mr Haines, it is easier to get rid of the topic of how precisely to practice the glibly-claimed "responsible collecting" than to manage a frank and open discussion about the topic when in fact the vast bulk of his members have little or no interest in how responsible is responsible. However and whatever they collect, they all nevertheless consider themselves as "responsible" because they belong to a "responsible collectors' discussion list". That is despite the fact that responsible collecting is not really discussed there in any detail, but they "have" got a Code of Ethics (compare it with this). Big deal if it means nothing.

There is a clear parallel with UK metal detectorists who were all "responsible" until PAS produced a Code agreed with a number of other organizations defining that term. Then they found it necessary to write an alternative code so they could all fit in the alternative definition... Yahoo's artefact collectors evidently prefer just to shut their ears to any kind of questioning what exactly is meant by "responsible collecting" and cannot cope with their glib assertions being questioned. They start "bickering and bitching" amongst themselves.
.

The Tale of Brave Sir Dave

.

It seems to me that there is basically something rather cowardly in Dave Welsh's actions posting his attack on the Ancient Artefacts discussion list with 2500 members and moneta-l with another few thousand from which I am excluded from answering. It seems to me that there is something very cowardly in Tim Haines' moderation of what he fondly imagines to be a forum about "responsible collecting", allowing such attacks on a non-member without allowing the victim the right of reply. Moneta-L long ago gave up the pretence of being interested in any open discussion of the issues.

Brave, Brave Sir Dave. Hiding behind his mates and discussion group exclusive moderation. You would not like to say the same to my face here or on my other blog would you? Thought not.

You Tube Clip from Monty Python's "Ye Pretencie of Responsible Coin Collecting for ye Weake of Response".

.

They are "only East Europeans"

Over on the UKDN metal detectorists' forum, one of the forum moderators who goes under the name of "Baldric" (the name of the character played by Time Team presenter Tony Robinson in the Blackadder series) writes about three You Tube videos made by some metal detector-using artefact hunters in Russia (here, here and here):

That is total destruction of any historical context, especially that last one, the wooden case was originally intact and these guys just ripped it apart. Just because they are East European/ Russian does not excuse this wanton damage. I cannot condone this sort publicity, it is the very worst of what we are ALL labelled as by the archaeological hiarachy, who think that we all act in this manner.

What this particular eastern (little 'e' please) European archaeologist thinks is that "just because they are East European" is an offensive statement. Many metal detector users in eastern Europe (where the hobby is the subject of legislation) are a good deal more ethical in their collecting practices and do less damage to the archaeological record than their UK counterparts. So what about the bloke that dug the Staffordshire hoard for several days and only called the archaeologists when his kitchen table was full of gold?

That does not mean of course that what we see in these Russian videos is any the more acceptable practice either of course.

For those who can see the thread (you have to register first with the tekkies) there is some really revealing censorship going on here. Keith from Northumberland first saw the videos and thought they were exciting and he decided (under the thread name "nice finds") to share this with his tekkie mates. He wrote: "foreign videos i no (sic) but its nice to watch them coming up like daffodil bulbs". One 'Jacobean Ken' had time to reply "Wish it was me" before "Baldric" remonstrated as above. Keith, obviously understood the gaffe he had made [and apparently was to such an extent upset about it that forgot how to use the present perfect tense], answered:

"sorry guys the subject title should of (sic) bean (sic) .... nice finds but poorly excavated. maybe one of the forum moderators can change it for me."

One of the Forum moderators did change it... to "nice finds VERY poorly recovered" adding, "I guess these will be doing the rounds in certain circles. The kind of PR the hobby does not need eh".

Eh. What however is the important point for us here is NOT so much that some Russian guys went out hoard-hunting with a metal detector and found some wire money, Alexander II copper coin hoards etc. but the blatant attempts by UK metal detectorists to cover up the self evident fact that not all of the members of their community by any means think and behave like the official propaganda would have the rest of the world believe.

Northumberland Keith did not post the videos as an example of bad practice - far from it, but by two in the afternoon of the day it was posted, the whole thread was renamed to make it look as if he had.