Not Really Doing Much to Combat the "Radical Archaeologists" is He?

.
Candice Jarman promised his followers that he'd be "Fighting the lies and distortions of the 'radical archaeologists'..." because he is "incensed at the misinformation and lies spread by the anti-metal detecting/anti-collecting archaeological lobby - hence this blog which will expose their lies and set the record straight on a legitimate and lawful activity".

Well, so far on his blog in January there have been seven posts, including such highlights as: Who am I?, Is Mr Barford a toxic author?, It's YOU who is being unprofessional Mr Barford!, Damien gets caught out!, So now we know.... and suchlike gems...


What we do not find on the "Paul Barford - heritage - the [T]ruth blog" is any kind of response to the texts I have in the same period published about metal detecting in the UK. Candice most obviously has nothing to say in justification of the hobby in the light of the comments contained in posts like:

"Farm Business" Magazine on Treasure Hunting Rage

Blaydon Boyz and an Archaeological "Partner" Filmed in Action

Negligence Writ Large

Have Detector Users Moved as far in their Thinking as Archaeologists?

What the....?

Listen, Can you Hear Anything?

The Heritage Action Artefact Hunting Erosion Count...

British Archaeology Dropping the Ball

One wonders whether Candice is serious about addressing the arguments, or merely intent on discrediting those that raise them, but in the process casting doubt on the ability of the artefact hunters and collectors to engage in any kind of discussion with the public about the way they treat the heritage.

Vignette: Perhaps he is still thinking how to make metal detecting look better.

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, oh Candy what is the TRUTH?

.

"Candice Jarman" is still refusing to discuss the issues of where what I write about artefact collecting is misinformation. Instead she continues her vendetta against the author (This is Mr Barford - Part 2 ) with "what do we know about Mr Barford?" - well actually rather less than she thinks, and report as "fact". But then, she is not exactly being honest with her own readers is she?

I am not going to comment on the sketchy reconstruction she offers - I really have nothing to defend, nor be ashamed of, she is rather the person who should be ashamed.

1) "Mr Barford had his own entry on Wikipedia". This page was a spiteful hatchet-job made by a person who also had an anonymous blog on so-called "Barfordisation" surprisingly close in tone and style - and graphic content to Candy's. The abysmal lack of real content padded out by personal attacks and cheap jibes was not worthy even of Wikipedia, and that is why it was removed.

2) "worked as a field archaeologist on a number of excavations, mainly in south Wales" No. I worked on the finds from these, it's why I am a co-author of the reports she cites. Regretfully I have never worked or lived in Wales. "Candy" seems totally unable to work the Google Scholar Search engine, this is why the blog's author simply misses a whole mass of references to article published by me (including some on the themes of collecting). According to my CV, the total should be somewhere around 176 (I've not updated it recently and really have no intention of doing so just because "Candy wants to know", if she wants to do "archaeology for all" let her join an academic library). The alleged review of my book is misquoted, quite tellingly so and should be compared with the seventeen published properly in academic journals and not by some pseudonymous individual on Amazon.

3) "why was the cross taken and for what reason!" [I think the solicitor's secretary intended that to be a question] Simply because it had the name of the person inscribed on it, given the nature of the project, it was important to document the identity of the source of the DNA. After the cross had been photographed, it was replaced back in the same place on what was left of the body in the vault when it was sealed and is still there. By that time the person who wrote the text you were reading had got bored and gone. Cheap shot based on incomplete information.

4) "In June 2009, Mr Barford reportedly cynically compared the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 [...] with his own struggle [...] ". Cheap shot. That is not exactly what I said. http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2009/06/was-tank-man-archaeologist.html

5) "Candy" is another one who does not want to understand the Heritage Action Erosion counter. So be it. It is of course not "Mr Barford[']s Heritage/Artefact Erosion Counter". So that is another cheap shot - but hey, here we are actually getting on to some discussion of the merits of the matter - but it does not last long.

6) "Mr Barford's personal life". Hmmm. "what a remarkable woman Mrs Barford must be" - Yes indeed "Candy", she is, more than you suspect. She has a few choice words about you too, and some professional connections you'd probably feel safer not knowing about. Since she neither sells antiquities nor collects them, nor writes on the topic, I do not see what my wife has to do with my views on portable antiquity collecting. "Candy" even has posted on her blog a picture called "Barford_home.jpg". Instead of showing Mrs Barford's home, it is in fact a technical school, draw your own conclusions. I really do not see how anyone can call the Zoliborz district of Warsaw "dreary".

7) "Candy" writes: "Below is a short biographical entry on Mr Barford picked up on the internet by a correspondent (my emphasis):" Perhaps somebody might like to challenge her on where her correspondent's "source" can be found. I doubt very much that there was ever a text with that precise wording anywhere on the Internet, certainly not one produced in consultation with me. More to the point, as far as I can see there is currently no such text on the internet, not even cached, so the question arises when and where "Candy" claims to have accessed this text. After all, we recall that she claims she only started collecting this material after "she" became annoyed with what I wrote about the Crosby Garrett helmet. I suspect this has come from the same "source" as the fabrications of the spite-ridden Wikipedia page.

For similar stuff (in fact probably the "source" of some of "Candy's" ideas): http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/06/paul-barford-voice-of-archaeological.html .

NOW "Candy" has got that off her chest, can we get onto the discussion of artefact hunting and where what I say about it is allegedly wrong? No more beating about the bush, take the bull by the horns, let us see the thrust of your argument. Just one ordinary bloke with another. No need to be shy.

Vignette: British metal detectorists try to put their case the only way they know how.

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.

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.

Metal Detectorist in Dresden Court

This is a picture of a metal detectorist in a Dresden court.