Mouthy CPAT? The Debate on Preservation in Wales

.
A few days ago some bloke from the Wrexham Heritage Society got irate that I pointed out that they were really just a metal detecting club. He thought he'd stick the knife in:

We are supported by the PAS, C.P.A.T & The National Museum of Wales. I would like to ask, why an archaeologist that we have recently worked with called you Paul barford "a mouthy twat"?? This i found very amusing.

No doubt. This archaeologist of course will only say such things behind people's backs, never to their face - let alone justify what issues they have with what I am saying about artefact hunting and the preservation of the archaeological record. Metal detectorists may find such behaviour "supportive", but is it going any way to fulfilling the aims of collaboration with artefact hunters simply to dismiss the sort of concerns raised here? Personally, I think an archaeologist should be addressing the wider issues of artefact hunting and collecting in their dealings with the public. Here however we seem to be observing how it is in practice, with the archaeologist shying away from saying anything his or her metal detecting "partners" might find controversial or unpalatable - so they just play along with the "we are on your side' ploy. Or perhaps this person really believes that archaeology is just about hoiking the stuff out?

Is it the archaeologists of the National Museum of Wales that have such a low opinion of somebody who urges we take a closer look at the way we treat the archaeological record and are telling the Wrexham Heritage Society artefact hunters of this?

Now interestingly enough, we know that in their collaboration with metal detecting clubs in northeast Wales, two of these bodies mentioned by the bloke from Wrexham, the Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust and the Portable Antiquities Scheme are actually represented by the same person. He is named on the PAS website. If we Google this guy's name he turns out to be a weedy young guy with long hair and a beard and who seems to spend most of his time talking to Womens' Institute meetings. If it is this gentleman who as part of his "archaeological outreach" to the public is expressing such an opinion of his older and more experienced colleagues, then he might at least have the decency to make such comments first to my face and say why he is "supporting" artefact hunters in this particular way and why he thinks the issues raised by myself (and my colleagues?) are just so much "mouthy twattery".

I do not expect he will. Still, if the gentleman concerned is the local FLO, we can take comfort from the fact that this sort of "outreach" about matters of concern will soon be ending, the Portable Antiquities Scheme is being closed down in Wales next year, and outreach to the public (if any) will take place through other avenues.

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.
.

No Reaction: Acquiescence or Apathy?

I pointed out that on a numismatic discussion list a coin collector had announced to his fellows that "archaeologists want to abolish private property" and remarked that not a single collector demurred. Buffy, the author of the "Barford-response" blog claims that I have not:

"cottoned on that when it comes to radical viewpoints, a lot of people simply ignore them. If a far right group hand you their leaflet in the street and you decline to read it or enter into discussion with them, does this mean you accept their viewpoint?.[sic] Of Course not".

Well, firstly in the example he cites, I am sorry, but it does. It means you accept them spreading this type of material about in the streets. I live in Poland, where that act is illegal, and I do not see why Buffy thinks decent people would walk by ignoring the fact that an illegal act was going on under their noses.

Nevertheless, what is being discussed is an opinion expressed on a discussion list, a list where members do not normally simply "ignore" points of view with which they disagree. I imagine that if somebody posted on a British "metal detecting" forum a similar opinion, that "all archaeologists are trying to abolish private property, first they take away your rights to detect, then they will be after your car, we must stop supporting and co-operating with the PAS"... Buffy is suggesting that there would be total silence, even though not everybody on UKDN or Detectorist.uk or Minelabsowners Forum etc etc agrees. Is that the case? Let Buffy try it and see.

Considering the number of posts there have been on the Moneta-L forum on "Government intrusion" and "Government theft" and other such-like topics, and especially the tone in which they are conducted, I think it is not insignficant that there was no response to Rieske's post.

Buffy then gets excited because he realises something:

Hold on, Mr Barford never questions my views on this Blog does he? so HE MUST agree with them using Barfordian logic. Yet another act of capitulation from Mr Paul M Barford- Hoorah

Well, first of all Buffy rarely expresses "views", just cheap jibes, and there is indeed a response to some of them here. There is no point trying to address them all, I have no intention of proving I am not a camel. That is not "capitulation", it means I have better things to do than play an anonymous critic's silly word games. He is just trying to waste everybody's time with his sniping.

e-rodentition gone wrong

In the schools to which I went, we learnt to use the plurals of nouns, both regular and irregular as well as the correct use of an apostrophe. It seems that in his rush to be cute, the mouse-loving legal eagle hate-blogger Buffy forgot what he, presumably, too learnt at school. In his efforts to cover up the fact that in order to present a fuller picture, there are two blogs to which he ought to be directing his readers, he forgot to delete the ‘s’ and in the process attacks the Barford Community Website Group, gratuitously accusing them of having produced a “one-sided” website for accessing of which “discretion is advised”:

The Paul M Barford Blogs in question.
CAUTION - The Blogs below may contain content that readers may find one sided in nature. It is therefore advised that readers exercise discretion before clicking. Thank you.
Mr Paul. M. Barford blog. http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/
And here, a Barford we can warm to, be inspired by and just enjoy for being............Barford.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~kroberts/barford/html/hist.html

This is getting so childish. It is not the fault of the local community that they live in a village with a name that sounds like mine (no connection by the way, my family is East Anglian as far back as it can be traced, to the 1500s). I note that the change was made just after the blog’s author received my comment directing him to the true URL of this blog – a comment though that it will be no surprise to learn has not yet been posted by the blog’s owner, who apparently would prefer to conceal from his readers that metal detecting and Buffy’s non-responses to the issues raised are being discussed here.

UPDATE 23/7/09: Mr Buffy/Welton has now edited his blogsite, removed a couple of posts into the bargain (he also seems to have some problems with the formatting doesn't he?). Now he refers to a "blog below". As I say, it's all getting a bit childish.

Heritage "Crusade" needs detectorists' approval?

Buffy the anonymouse rodent fetishist really does not get it. In the blog which he and his guffawing low-brown sidekicks think is an adequate "response" to the issues which conservationists raise about the exploitation of the archaeological record merely as a mine for collectables he attempts to claim that raising these issues is damaging... well what? He reckons it is damaging the relationships with people who "care about history". He has even produced a picture worth more than a thousand of his words: "Barford[']s Heritage Crusade Needs YOU" proclaims somewhat effete cartoon mouse with teeth sprouting from his chin.

Well, actually it does not, I have no "crusade"(and if I did, it would certainly not recruit the likes of the readers of blogs like his anyway).

Instead I have my own views about artefact hunting and collecting. I think there are good reasons for saying that certain prevailing attitudes to them, especialy in the UK, are utterly mistaken. Consequently I make attempts to articulate why, to help me think them through. I do not need readers, I do not seek agreement, in fact I would welcome well-articulated confronting ideas with a firm basis in logic and fact against which to test and refine my own models.

Mr Buffy's puerile "responses" really do not fit the measure. It seems to me that in response to my explorations of some issues, he is the one embarked on a "crusade", or rather a vendetta against a single person.

Zer0

With reference to the little matter of the anonymouse critic of my main heritage issues blog announcing to his readers that I have deleted this one, I have just posted this as what seems to be the first reader's comment to Buffy's childish vendetta blog:

Dear Anonymous,
You claim you cannot find my second blog. The one where
I reply to some of the nonsense you and your guffawing detectorist and collecting mates and English, Welsh and Scotish archaeologist friends consider to be an adequate “response” (sic) to the issues I raise about portable antiquity collecting.

Frankly, I find this hard to take at face value, you could have found it by simply Googling the blog’s name. It seems to me that since nobody else has access to the set-up page, the most likely person to insert a “0” [zero] in one of the words in the place of the letter “o” in the URL of the other blog [thus rendering it useless] is the owner of the "Paul Barford and Barfordisation" hate-blog.

In case my suspicions concerning your motives are wrong, here is the correct URL, it has no “zero” http://detectoristcopywrite.blogspot.com/ You can now insert it at the top of the front page of your hate blog for the benefit of the readers seeking a fuller picture.

You will see I have added to it a few comments since you last visited.
Paul Barford

Let us see what happens, will he be a mouse or a man and admit his mistake?

Hiding behind a curtain

Buffy the anonymous hate-blogger pretends he cannot see this blog anymore, so he has removed the link (the one that had the numeral "zero" in the place of the letter "o" which is why he could not get it to work) from his own blog. Of course the reasons are transparent, he realises that the reader of his blog need only follow that link to find that his "responses" to the Portable Antiquities and Heritage Issues blog were being noted and answered. They are then found not to be "responses" at all, but merely a series of personal attacks. Now based on the "wikipipedia" dictionary (sic) page he has cached away, he has concluded, from the fact it contains a paucity of information that its author could not find on the internet, that Paul Barford is "hiding behind a curtain". That is rich from somebody who cannot even put his real name under what he writes. Mr Buffy or Mr Welton whatever his name is, is coming very close to stepping over the line here with his speculations and innuendos. First about me and now he is attacking my wife into the bargain. This is intolerable.

By all means let us have some responses to the issues I raise on my blog, let us have some discussion with any "metal detectorists" able and willing to have a proper discussion. Are there any? Certainly the author of the "Barfordisation" blog has well shown his inability to fulfill that role.

This big red round thing Mr Buffy is what we call a "zero", recognise it now?

'Arry Stottle's got a lotta bottle but Buffy takes the Biscuit

Buffy, apparentrly the alter ego of Steve Welton the Phantom Biographer reckons he can find examples of all thirteen of “Aristotle’s fallacies” in my writing, specifically on my blog. So he’s found a “filosofy fer dummies” webpage, and is successively copy and pasting bits of it onto his blog as though he’d written it and then added some examples of these logical fallacies that he claims he has found on my blog. ("Paul Barford is often found stumbling over his own arguments and conclusions drawn thus, yet he uses the smokescreen of erudition to provide the defensive cover to the paucity of his arguments.") Well, lets have a look at them. So far he’s only got as far as two of these posts, and seems to have run out of stamina.

The first was, appropriately enough, posted the day after April Fools’ Day – this was devoted to ‘Affirming the Consequent’. "Anyone reading this and Mr Barfords Blog will instantly spot that Affirming the Consequent is a favoured tactic of Mr Paul Barfords to foster his pre-agenda (sic) arguments". Examples of this which Buffy claims he has found on my blog are:

" A bad thing was done by someone using a metal Detector. People using metal detectors do bad things"
"An unethically sourced item passed through the PAS.
Items passing through the PAS are unethical".

Now, actually it would be helpful to the reader for Mr Buffy to put a little hyperlink so that the reader can see where I said these things he is using as his “examples” from my blog. Logic would demand that wouldn’t it? But oddly enough this logic does not apply to Mr Buffy’s black propaganda. The reason for this is perfectly logical in fact.

The reason is that nowhere on my blog do I say "A bad thing was done by someone using a metal Detector. People using metal detectors do bad things". What I say may be paraphrased is the opposite, just because some metal detectorists co-operate with archaeology and such things bring benefit to archaeology, not all metal detectorists can be seen as beneficial to archaeology, in assessing the phenomenon we need to differentiate the one from the other and not say that “metal detecting is good for archaeology”. Some of it quite clearly is not.

Equally Buffy is deceiving his readers when he asserts that I said "An unethically sourced item passed through the PAS. Items passing through the PAS are unethical". What I say is that the items recorded by PAS cannot be assumed to all be of licit origin and from the provenance stated, since PAS cannot carry out any independent checks. This means that potentially an unknown quantity of items in the PAS database are of no use as archaeological data and we have no way of knowing which ones. The example illustrates this fact. It is not so much an example of affirming the consequent as raising an issue which calls into question the total (rather than overall) reliability of a dataset.

It took him another three weeks to think up the next post in the series. This is devoted to the "false cause" fallacy. Allegedly “The Assertion of the false Cause if [sic] a favoured tactic of Barfordisation in action. How many times do we see Mr Paul M Barford squirming his way through various topics, presenting his one sided views of a situation, to further his own false cause without giving the reader the true picture.” [I think that is a question but metal detectorists cannot “do punctuation” ]. Well, he has found three examples of what he says is the “Use of False Cause by Paul Barford”:

" Finding and removing metal artifacts destroys the archaeological record"
"YOUR heritage is being destroyed by metal detecting"
" The PAS sanctions the the sale of metal artifacts"

Well, here he’s lost me. I certainly do say that “finding and removing metal artifacts [from the archaeological record] destroys the archaeological record”. Finding and cutting out all the letter ‘b’s from a medieval manuscript Bible would destroy the Bible as it would yesterday’s Times. That is not an example of false cause.

Number two: “YOUR heritage is being destroyed by metal detecting" – Again, this does not seem to be a quote from my blog. Neither is it an example of false cause. Metal detecting and artefact collecting, by removing evidence from the archaeological record without record, is indeed destroying the archaeological heritage, which belongs to everyone, not just a few selfish collectors.

Maybe Buffy has more luck with his third example, also no link sourcing it to a specific point in my blog… " The PAS sanctions the sale of metal artifacts". Where do I say that? [The word sanctions” on my blog is entirely associated with imposition of UN sanctions in Iraq which began the looting there]. I presume that Buffy means the reader to believe that somewhere on my blog it says that artifacts are bought and sold BECAUSE the PAS sanctions such sales. That would indeed be an example of “false cause”, but Buffy if asked would not be able to say where I say such a (stupid) thing. Because I do not.

I find it really puzzling that somebody would set out to prove the existence of logical fallacies in what somebody writes without actually having a single clear example in mind where there actually is such a thing. It’s a bit like somebody setting out to write a biography of a person in an encyclopedia having no idea at all about who that person is or what they have done.

Despite these deficiencies, Buffy soldiers on. Where he can produce no quotes to back up his claim of logical fallacies, he makes them up. He makes up quotes which do not exist, and therefore does not provide hyperlinks to them, safe in the knowledge that the metal detecting populace of Great Britain is not at all interested in checking the facts for themselves. But metal detectorists are a small minority.

All Mr Buffy's insults and innuendos will not change that. Instead of making up quotes in order to say they are nonsense (as they are, they are also fictional), let the pro-collecting lobby take up real arguments, and produce real arguments against them.

I look forward to the third post on the "fallacies" - let us see if Mr Buffy can make an improvement on his first two wholly unimpressive performances in this field.

Welton listens to reason

I see this evening that after I pointed out on the "discussion" page of the text he had "kindly" contributed to Wikipedia about me, that the person calling themselves "Steve Welton", metal detectorist, thought the better of his malicious action and has deleted most of the damaging nonsense he wrote. Good riddance. But now he has revealed - presumably intentionally - something of the identity of the "Barfordisation" blogger called "Buffy" who has embarked on a similar campaign.

Welton on the Portable Antiquities Scheme

In his wikipedia attack page on the subject of "Paul M. Barford", Buffy the cowardly critic maliciously writes:

Paul Barford is a vociferous and outspoken critic of progressive, modern archaeology and outreach between the Archaeological community and the general public, in particular the *Portable Antiquities Scheme in the united Kingdom which Paul Barford has called " the Portable antiquities Scam" *[5]

Mr Buffy has clearly not read the text of the TAG paper, so he is unlikely to understand what I say is the "scam". I wonder to what degree a global encyclopedia should be saying that it a "progressive and modern archaeology" that forms partnerships with artefact hunters and collectors. Outside the topsy-turvey world of British archaeology artefact collectors are (rightly) treated as a threat to the archaeological record. Such a "partnership" in most other milieus would be regarded as "retarded and outmoded". Buffy goes on to say about the PAS:

This immensley successful scheme was set up to allow members of the public to formally record objects of historical interest that they may have found, for the greater benefit of the archaeological community and the UK's cultural and historical *Patrimony.

Except as far as I can see no Steve Welton has contributed any information to the Portable Antiquities Scheme. I am checking this with the PAS. So far they have not vindicated him.

Some examples of the success of the *Portable Antiquities Scheme are the *Harrogate Hoard & the *Ringlemere Cup.

In what way I wonder? They are both Treasure items. As any (responsble, informed) metal detectorist should know, The PAS is for recording non-Treasure items. Weston is misleading his readers.

In June 2009, Paul Barford cynically compared the *Tiananmen Square protests of 198, in which 2,600 innocent Chinese protesters were were killed, with his own struggle against the concept of 'Partnership' between The *Portable Antiquities Scheme and members of the public recording items they have found with the *Portable Antiquities Scheme.

Well, of course Buffy neglects to supply his reader with the reference here, because if he had done so, the reader would see that this is not at all what I said, Buffy is deliberately and maliciously twisting the truth. I contrasted the Tankman (now believed to be a Chinese archaeologist) standing up to the Tienanmen tanks with British archaeologists who will not stand up to looters of the British archaeological record with metal detectors. Nobody is "struggling" with the concept of members of the public recording accidental finds with the PAS, what there is concern about is the uses to which artefact hunters and collectors are putting it - and the deghree to which they are simply NOT using the scheme, which is what the Hertitage Action counter does - by giving figures that may be directly compared with those of the PAS database. There is a massive shortfall, which is of course why Buffy is not telling wikipedia readers the truth about what it is intended to signify.

The Pitfalls of writing an Encyclopedia Article if you are an Ignorant Malicious Intellectual Gnome

Somebody calling themselves Steve Welton has written a wikipedia article about "Paul M. Barford". A sample:

Paul M Barford is a British born former archaeologist (*Polish- Archaeolog) who in 1986 moved to Poland and is currently living in central Warsaw. Formerly an assistant lecturer at the Institute of Archaeology, *University of Warsaw (*Polish - Uniwersytet Warszawski) and an Inspector of Ancient Monuments in the *Ministry of Culture and National Heritage of the Republic of Poland (*Polish- Ministerstwo Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego). During his time as inspector Barford, it is believed that Paul Barford personaly inspected many of Polands Ancient Monuments.Paul Barford also wrote articles on conservation during his time inspecting *[1] Paul Barford is the author of various books, articles, Blogs,Internet forum threads and several reports on excavations in England and Poland. Paul Barford now works as a translator. Paul M Barford is interested in *Slavic Peoples ,in particular *Early Slavs and the development of Slavic tribes as they spread across central Europe and has since written a book on the subject. Education & Qualifications Currently unknown.

Good grief. As many as eight factual mistakes and three spelling mistakes in one paragraph. What kind of an "encyclopedia" is that? So if the author actually currently does not know anything about the subject's educational background, why did he put pen to paper before finishing his research? What "qualifications" does the author of the article have for writing on this subject, it is not his knowledge of Polish or what the subject has done for a start. In fact where are the date of birth and death of the subject? What was the subject doing between 1974 and 1986? Was the subject always engaged in research into the early Slavs since 1986, or was there some other field of research involved? Where's the sex scandal?

It is clear from the topics which the writer "selects" for discussion, that he is a "metal detectorist".

This in Wikipedia terminology is an "attack page" and for this reason, I doubt it will be up for long. The author seems not to take into account that not everybody reading an encyclopedia thinks that metal detecting is acceptable. His writing lacks focus.
Besides which he is deliberately and slyly misleading.

"Current interests/ Since the early 1990s Paul M Barfords main interests have been searching eBay and also artefact hunting and collecting and the market in portable antiquities and coins. Paul Barford is also an avid blogger and internet forum user."

and

Coin Collecting/ Paul Barford has a particular interest in coin collecting & *Numismatics and is a regular contributor to internet discussions regarding coins and coin collecting, especially coins offered for sale, where his insight and knowledge has proved invaluable in proving the sometimes disputed *provenance of rare coins.

This no doubt is slanderous in the circumstances, besides which the author displays ignorance, there was no eBay in "the early 1990s".

Interestingly, I found an eBay seller called "Swelton" - and there is no trace of a metal detectorist Steve Welton on the PAS database. I doubt it is his real name. Like the sly individuals who wrote to the Times falsely using my name...

It is obvious that metal detectorists are worried about some of the arguments that are being raised against the glib justifications that are offered in favour of the hobby of the expoloitation of archaeological sites merely as a source of collectables. Instead however of addressing these arguments, a whole bunch of them is merly engaged in diversive tactics of deception like this "black propaganda".

UK Metal Detecting COWARD declines to "respond" to the issues

We find that since 25th February this year there has been no action over on the misnamed “paul-barford-blog-response” blog (“Paul M Barford and Barfordisation” run by some anonymous "metal detecting" coward from Monmouth (or so he claims) who is afraid to post under his own name. Anyway, he has apparently decided (‘Capitulation over erudition’ ) he actually has nothing much to say except to splash a lot of personal comments all over the web and claims that “Judging by Mr Paul M Barfords recent posts and also from correspondence I have been getting, it seems this Blog has effected change within Mr Barfords, previously less than pleasant Blogstyle”. Really? Peter Tompa does not think so. Anyway Buffy the cowardly metal detectorist announces that “So, for now Paul, you can get up from the naughty step”.

He writes something quite remarkable. “View this blog is a sort of Re-hab for archaeologists who have lost thier (sic) moral compass along the way”. Frankly as far as I am concerned, it is archaeologists who support artefact hunting and portable antiquity collecting in any form that have lost their compass bearings.

Buffy the Cowardly Metal Detectorist seems to think that it is his RIGHT to be accepted and lauded by all archaeologists BECAUSE he is a metal detectorist… by what rights Mr “Buffy”? What rights have you to attempt to dictate what I think or say about artefact hunting and collecting and those who engage in it and those that accept, encourage and aid and abet them? Why should you attempt to place me on any kind of "naughty step" (whatever that is) because I think differently about the archaeological heritage from you and your guffawing metal detecting mates?

"За Волгой земли для нас не было".

"I am Vassily Zaitsev".
Василий Зайцев (let's get the spelling right, one 's') was facing Hitler in one of the most atrocious battles of the so-called Eastern Front. I wonder, in using such a bold comparison, Person-hiding-behind-the-pseudonym-Buffet thinks he is "defending". I wonder what 'threat' he sees across the Wye?

"Buffet's" blog is aimed at my main blog "Portable Antiquities and heritage Issues" and is named "paul-barford-blog-response". The reader will easily note that he has not actually responded to any of the points raised there about portable antiquity hunting and collecting. But then, there is nothing new about that from the whole sad pro-collecting lobby, the British archaeologists among them. All they can do is pretend to be heroic saboteurs and snipers. They may take random pot-shots at the "messenger", but the issues sadly remain wthout a proper response from the whole pro-collecting lobby who usually drag any discussion down to the level of ad hominem attacks.

Buffy declies to play the "issues" game: he has another one of his own

"Just seeing when you visited. posted by BUFFET, The Ham Pie Slayer at 13:21 on 30-Dec-2008". I replied:

I am just checking to see if you are going to post anything of substance, as you promised. To see if you are going to attack the knotty issues rather than continually anonymously snipe at the personal traits of those (or just ONE of those) that raise them. There's ten thousand guffawing tekkie mates out there waiting for the next little mousy taunt. Not to mention Dave Connolly.
Paul Barford