More on Death Threats from Portable Antiquities Society

.

Regarding his threats sent to my blog ('Portable Antiquities Society Makes Death Threats'), the head of the Portable Antiquities Society has again contacted me explaining:

when you make libellous remarks about someone, you really don’t know who you are dealing with. I have always been known as a nasty piece of work, and people who have caused me trouble usually pay a high price.

It seems quite a lot of UK metal detectorists have not the foggiest idea what libel actually is. Nobody has made any libellous comments about the Society or its creator, and the law is entirely clear what recourse the injured party has if they allege that they have been libelled.

That many metal detectorists are "nasty pieces of work" is amply confirmed by what they themselves say about what colleagues have threatened or done in various circumstances and what we hear from PAS staff when Roger Bland is not listening and other UK archaeologists who have confronted them (most avoid doing so). Mr Taylor has a "reputation" and its not the first time this individual has been mentioned on the pages of this blog. So yes I think we all get a fairly good idea what kind of person we are dealing with from the words of his own mouth. There are many like him in the ranks of British metal detecting. Join a forum or two yourselves and take a look at what you see.

We might ask why the Mr Taylor thinks I am "causing him trouble" by looking at the material he himself posts on the internet. Like everybody else, I have every right to look at what is made available in the public domain and every right to express my opinion about it. Certainly much more right than Mr Taylor has threatening anyone at all over it.

Incidents like this brought out into the open show that it really is about time the public in Britain woke up to just what kind of people are among those going out in the fields onto archaeological sites with metal detectors either within or outside the law and taking away unsustainably large numbers of archaeological finds for entertainment and profit.

Who is Candice, What is She, That Swains Commend her?

[metal detecting nonsense]

.

Somebody writes:

My name [...] is Candice Elisabeth Jarman. I am 24 and I am not a metal detectorist.

So, the name is just like that lady in Tennessee? I don't want to be unkind, but if the photo Candice has used is of a 24 year old, she'd better give up the fags and start using a different moisturiser. As for whether Mr Jarman is a metal detectorist, let the content of his words speak for themselves. For somebody who is pressurising others who write about heritage issues to submit a full CV with "qualifications" and "credentials" to public scrutiny, Candice Jarman's online details seem rather scanty. In fact if you Google the name, the only things you'll find on the internet about "her" comes from two of Paul Barford's blogs.

I think before this individual continues to attack real people's real lives, in order to establish "her" credentials and qualifications, Candice Jarman should at least publish something which allows their identity as a real person to be established. Since he demands it of others, the name of blogger Candice Jarman's employer would do. After all, we all fully understand that this solicitor is in no way implicated in what Candice Jarman writes in his own free time outside work (see also here).

.

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.

Detectorists and All the Bad Fings They Do

Off-topic comment on a text on Heritage Journal about French detectorists and welsh museums (spelling and punctuation as in original):

Its funny when i see these comments on damaged historical sites and Paul Barford talking as if he is some kind of expert on who does the damage, He only concentrates on metal detectorist and all the bad things they do,this guy is 90% Bullshit and 10% glorified grave digger full untruths wind and piss so to speak. So please do not take any notice of anything he says,as he is big lier, Norm

I guess readers can make up their own minds how much "bullshit" and "piss" there is in my opinions on the general situation on the antiquities market and in artefact collecting. Oddly enough the metal detectorists like Illiterit Norm think I am "concentrating on the metal detectorists" while the coin collectors across the Atlantic think I am concentrating on them... The rest of us see that there are a few more general problems emerging with attitudes to the exploitation of archaeological sites as a source of collectables which need addressing by those more articulate than oiks who cannot spell, omit prepositions and replace civilised language by four-letter crudities.

Vignette: Worzel Gummidge Down Under.

Big Mick wants to tell me where to "stick it"

Big Mick the detectorist is well known to Heritage Journal readers, effing and blinding his way across their pages. Now we learn that he is not even English:

Smashing!! The more we can sell on ebay the better, why should you be the only ones with private collections? Anyway Paul you break the law in Egypt by taking pictures in the valley of the kings so don’t act like you are some kind of a saint. See you soon when I return from the UK (jobs about finished here) and you can tell me to my face why you are anti metal detecting and I can tell you where to stick your views. Michal Jaworski.

Interesting, Michał Jaworski. Not the computer software Michał Jaworski I trust. Anyway, I am not quite sure who Mr Jaworski is accusing of having "private collections" and on what grounds, neither apparently is he aware that in Egypt I was on an SCA mission, so had all the relevenant permits to be where I was and doing what I was doing, how could it be otherwise?

Anyway, let us see how Big Mick responds to my accepting his invitation, which should be very entertaining: Szanowny Panie Michale, Oczywiście jak będzie Pan w okolicy Warszawy, chętnie spotkam z Panem przy piwie i podyskutujemy na temat mojego „stosunku do używania wykrywaczy metali” w Polsce i w Anglii. Przy okazji chętnie bym dowiedział się wiecej o wciąż tajemniczej dla mnie „Central Searchers” i nt. państwa Evans... maybe he'd like to bring along to our meeting some of the British artefacts he has found while on the Central Searchers' digs, can you do that Mister Michał, please? Let me know when you are coming back with those antiquities and I'll see to it that you are "met" at the airport.

UPDATE: "Big Mick {"Jaworski"}" replied: 09/07/2010 at 14:02

Sir Paul, czekam na piwie z Tobą, kiedy wrócę, moje komentarze w których nie służy jako zagrożenie trochę zabawy. Central Searchers wydaje się być dobrze zorganizowany klub i Richard Evans jest przyjemny człowiek. Michal

My reply to that was somewhat tongue-in-cheek:

I think Mr Michał, that you have been in England a little too long… your Polish has certainly suffered, I am afraid it really now looks more like a computer translation than that of a native speaker!

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.

Metal Detecting in California

"It's guys like this get metal detecting a bad name", I can imagine the tekkies all wailing in unison. It is however supposed (I think) to be parody indicating what some epeople think of metal detectorists.


"Looking around the park, one has to wonder, what is the history of the park, what kind of people went there, when was it made, what activities went on there? The truth is we simply don't know [...] There's no records, we don't know the history"..."I don't want to dig too much here, [...] metal detecting is not permitted in the park, so I kinda go on the outskirts, and hope they are cool with that, or they do not see me...". "Some people say you should fill in your holes....". "Maybe what I really need is a girl detector".

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?

Buffy gets a Badger Blessing

Somebody points the readers of an archaeology forum to a blog which he claims to be „bitingly funny” quirky deconstructionism. Sadly the link turns out only to be his metal detecting mate (“Steve Welton’s”) Buffy blog which despite its title ["paul-barford-blog-response"] dismally fails to be a “response” to the portable antiquity issues I raise on my other blog.

The archaeology forum owner who thus tries to boost his metal detecting mate’s falling viewer figures claims that like me he is in some way concerned about what he calls “looting”, but like his pal Buffy does not agree with my “method of delivery and finger pointing” because that is “rather less agreeable in many posts”. Mr Connolly is a “pat-em-on-ther-head “,“hail-good-fellow-show-us-what-you’ve-got” advocate, and then he wonders why I say that he is pro-collecting.

Connolly writes, apparently about me:

As I said about Water Newton... some folk do, others write about what people should do without ever doing anything constructive. (that I can see)

I think that is what he must have said to the IFA when he (at the time a member of their Council) was called to explain himself over his participation in a commercial artefact hunting rally which – several people tried unsuccessfully to warn him – was (in the manner he did it) against the IFA Code of Practice. Now he is no longer in the IFA and trying to set up a parallel “Federation”. It seems to me that when dealing with artefact collecting, especially carried out as a commercial enterprise, there are some very slippery ethical issues involved for the serious archaeologist in "doing" anything in "partnership" with them.

Well, Mr Connolly can carry on patting artefact hunters on the head and cajoling them into showing him some of what they’ve found and taken from the archaeological record. What I have “done” in another area however is more than he, and that is to write with Nigel Swift a fairly detailed and closely referenced book placing in the public eye the other side of the argument and setting UK metal detecting and the associated ethical and practical issues in a wider archaeological and conservation setting.

Mr Connolly may count that as “not constructive”, he may call it “deconstructive”, but personally I think taken as a whole it is rather “instructive” about how shallow and provincial the arguments used by insular pro-artefact-collecting archaeologists like Connolly actually are. I think it says a lot more about the ideological and methodological crisis of British archaeology as anything.

It seems to me that what people sharing Connolly’s credo on artefact hunting and collecting will have to “do” after it comes out is to find some good and coherent arguments against ours, and frankly the kind of derivative ad hominem “response” that an anonymous half-wit metal detecting mouse fetishist is capable of coming up with is not going to help them.

[Connolly warns himself (!) "expect a stiff reply", well here it is, but only on my metal detecting matters ghetto blog which is where mentions of such metalista-trivia belong].

'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 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.

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?

Stew and Trace in Nighthawking Report

Those still following Monmouth "detectorist" Buffy's ramblings on what a thoroughly nasty person I am for questioning the current UK policies on artefact hunting and collecting will note that a few days ago 14th Jan (in a post called Godwins law or Barfords Law?) I was held up to his fellow "metal detectorists" as a class obsessed snob (or something) for referring to two of their fellows as "Stew" and "Trace". Buffy expresses his solidarity with them: "Why would anyone want to do this other than to underline some cultural and social separation in order to manipulate the readers opinion[?]". The present author is a bad guy: "the mere mention of 'Metal detectorists' seems to bring about a change in Mr Barford revealing a deep seated social and class based resentment that manifests itself in the aforementioned manner".* Anyway to come back to solidarising with "Stew" and "Trace", Buffy will see now that the case to which I refer is one of the case studies in the Nighthawking Report which came out today.
Anon 2009 Nighthawks and Nighthawking: Damage to Archaeological Sites in the UK and Crown Dependencies caused by Illegal Searching and Removal of Antiquities, Strategic Study Final Report, Oxford Archaeology for English Heritage). Buffy's fellow metal detector users Stuart and Tracy Nighthawker are on page 68-9 and also mentioned in several newspapers today. I am sure however that they are well gratified to see Buffy is at least still on their side.

*Actually it is aimed at those in the pro-collecting lobby who (on the basis of arguments marshalled by US coin collectors) try to present all collectors of portable antiquities as erudites engaged in serious research which will add to archaeological knowledge. They clearly are not. Not by any means all of them, it was the PAS and the Hawkshead Review which have has been talking about the social background of artefact hunters.

The view from Germany

According to Ray Reddich

Und hier noch ein schreiben von Julian Evan-Hart (British Museum) gegen Barford (Ein Polisch ammateur Archeolög in England) und Swift (auch ein Hobby Archeolög), zwei "Kopf in Sand" HOBBY Archeolögen !!......

Actually the guy is wrong on all three counts.

Recording, but what?

“I should point out I am not a pro-collecting archaeologist. I am a pro recording archaeologist” protests Scottish professional archaeologist David Connolly (“purveyor of dots”).

Let’s have a look at what this means in real terms. Barely literate internet auction seller danny 1970000 has what looks like a bronze statue of Diana for sale to the highest bidder.

THIS IS A STUNNING ROMAN STATUE LARGE 114 MM PART OF MY COLLETION MORE TO FOLLOW COMPLETE UK FIND NICE GREEN PETINA NO RESERVE

“danny” of Beccles, Suffolk, England clearly has a metal detector or sells items found by others who have. Over the past few weeks he has been selling a substantial number of little metal items all from his “own collection”.

Well, interestingly enough, last week he had another, a statue which looks like it is of Minerva

THIS IS A STUNNING ROMAN STATUE LARGE SIZE 108 MM PART OF MY COLLETION MORE TO FOLLOW COMPLETE UK FIND NICE GREEN PETINA NO RESERVE

Now let us assume that "metal detected object collector Danny" is telling the truth here, that these are truly ancient objects and found in the UK. Maybe David Connolly as an archaeologist would like to reflect on where he would go himself if he wanted to find such a figurine. They are not two-a-penny in fieldwork on the average Romano-British site. My thought is that if they are authentic, these finds suggest that “Danny” or his supplier has come across a votive deposit which he is now emptying onto eBay.

Now a merely “recording archaeologist” (for example a PAS-partner of artefact hunters) would pat "danny" on the head, say “

that’s nice Danny boy, if you would be so good, my dear artefact seeking partner, and give me some idea where you found this, a six-figure NGR will be sufficient, that’d be nice, now scamper off you history-hunting rascal, my old mate, and enjoy finding more”..

To my mind this is indeed being “pro-collecting”. To my mind a deposit like that which “Danny’s” finds seem to suggest is being emptied onto eBay deserves preservation for proper investigation under controlled conditions to add to our knowledge, not merely some token “recording” merely so some collector can increase the money in their paypal account.

“Pro-recording archaeologists” are doing nothing (NOTHING) to stop the erosion of Britain’s archaeological heritage through the exploitation of the archaeological record as a source of collectables. They are condoning and encouraging collecting and not trying to combat it. They are giving it an air of social respectibility instead of standing up and saying that this is not how a finite and fragile resource which most of us value should be being treated by a minority of self-centred individuals largely focussed only on their own material gain. And that is where I and Mr Connolly simply do not see eye-to-eye. Should real ornithologists be "partners" with egg-collecting nest-vandals in order to "record" where Ospreys HAD been nesting? This is a conservation issue not one of personal rights.

Mr Connolly congratulates middle class metal detecting enthusiast "Buffy the hampie slayer" on his blog for "pulling the cheesy mat from under the clay footed one....." and encourages him to "keep it up". I would like to ask him what is clay-footed about the arguments against encouraging this kind of exploitation of the archaeological record for personal entertainment and profit? He is welcome to comment here.

Who is the mouse?

Buffy the self-styled “middle-class detectorist” who apparently imagines he is the conservation lobby’s intellectual nemesis seems to be losing his grasp of things. Yes, Mr "Buffet", one can edit these blog posts (as Buffy himself frequently does. So what?

The “name plate” he accuses me of “unscrewing” from the banner of my blog of course never existed (he confuses the text of my profile with the banner heading of my blog).

Let us get one thing straight, archaeology is not and never has been for me a
chained library”. There is however as far as I am concerned a difference Mr Buffy between a library and a box of comic books and girlie magazines at a car boot sale. There is a difference between archaeology as a field of human enquiry and mere collecting of isolated fragments of the past. This IS a conservation argument, not one of personal rights. That is what the book I wrote with Nigel Swift (Chairman of grassroots conservation organization “Heritage Action”) is all about. Like it or lump it, but don't try to misrepresent what it is we are talking about.

Buffy is determined to define something he calls “Barfordisation” (of the “known facts” about “metal detecting”) and then seizes on little factoids from the blogosphere support this notion. Anyway he seems determined to represent me as some kind of rodent, but who is the man and who is the mouse, who uses their real name to stand behind their words, and who hides his puerile sniping behind anonymity and aliases?

Paul Barford (Real name)

Anti-PAS Ham Cabaret

Buffy the pie-scoffing Middle Class Detectorist is not the only clown one can find on the UK "metal detecting" scene; now they have DIY cabaret.

Two days ago a really awful new video " You Called Me Irresponsible" appeared on You Tube. In it Norwegian "metal detectorist" Gary Brun holds a metal detector while jigging frenetically around behind a microphone with a series of photos flashing on and off a monitor behind him. He is lip-syncing (badly) a song about... well, what on earth is it about? It seems to be a personal attack on Roger Bland and the Portable Antiquities Scheme and refers in some oblique way to the UK Detector Finds Database. Quite what posessed him to do that is anyone's guess. I am in no doubt that his equally "responsible" "metal detectorist" mates think its side-splittingly funny. As apparently does one archaeologist.

The video is apparently:

Dedicated to all metal detectorists who record their finds in
the UK and around the world. The UK Detecting Code Of Practice calls you "responcible" ONLY if you record with the PAS. What about all those detectorists who have been recording for years with the HER and other organisations?? The heritage belongs to all and not just those with an ology.

Now, why would a truly responsible artefact hunter have anything against the Portable Antiquities Scheme? Which of its aims is in conflict with their beliefs?

Portable Antiquity Collection and Archaeololgy in the UK

For some time now I have been gathering and collating material for a book on Britain's" Portable Antiquity Heritage: Artefact Collecting and the Archaeological Record written together with Nigel Swift. The publishers' blurb on Amazon says:

In recent years the discourse on artefact hunting and portable antiquity collection, and their relationship to archaeology in Britain, has become dominated by a particular blend of ideas grown up around the ethos of 'liaison'. These have had a far-reaching impact and are reflected in almost anything that is currently being written about artefact hunting and portable antiquity collection. This book takes as its starting point an examination of some of the fundamental assumptions on which this model is based and subjects the rhetoric of this discourse to careful analysis. As a result, a somewhat disturbing alternative picture emerges. After a historical chapter, artefact hunting and collecting are discussed with reference to basic principles of archaeological practice and ethics. The phenomenon is also examined against the background of portable antiquity collecting and the antiquities trade. The authors then move on to consider justifications offered by the advocates of collecting both in the hobby itself and the profession; the role of the media in forming public opinion; the part played by metal detecting; the use of personal collections as a means of curating Britain's archaeological record; and, the role of the Treasure Process and export licences in creating a national heritage from the finds of artefact hunters. Alternative proposals for dealing with the problem are also presented in this title.

No doubt airheads like Buffy the Middle Class Detectorist and his guffawing portable antiquity seeking mates all over the UK will hail the way we have presented our arguments as some kind of "misrepresentation" and no doubt redouble their attempts to attack the authors instead of actually addressing the issues raised. Nevertheless the book is not written for them - or even primarily about them.

Buddy quotes Goethe

Buffy the Middle Class Detectorist now attempts further to set himself apart from his fellow detectorists by now quoting Goethe:

"Behavior is the mirror in which everyone shows thier image"
Goethe Coming some time soon.

Obviously the forthcoming post is not going to be a remark on the ethics of artefact collecting either. This is despite his blog being called "Paul-Barford-Blog-Response" (referring to my Portable Antiquities and Heritage Issues blog). No matter, it is rapidly emerging that Buffy has nothing to say about anything much, let alone on that topic.

Buffy the Pie Gobbler Blogs and Gobs

Buffy the Ham Pie Slayer strikes again. He says: "I notice that this Blog has reached across the water to the depths of Poland and Warsaw in particular". Hardly surprising as its author or one of his mates sent me a message inviting me to look at his handiwork. Needless to say, hiding behind his pseudonym, does not advance any argument about the erosion of the archaeological record or the Valetta Convention or any meritorial matters I have raised about portable antiquity collecting, but focusses largely on my mistyping, and quite unneccessarily lectures me on the use of the word "perjury", (I had earlier expressed surprise that a person claiming to be "working in law" would misuse it in the way the author of the new blog did).

Never mind, the guy clearly has nothing to say about what I have posted on my other blog about the ethics and archaeological implications of collecting or any of the wider issues, so intends merely to continue (as do most artefact collectors it seems) a series of personal attacks. It seems that, despite being so concerned in the earlier posts on his blog to point out how unlike the rest of the metal detectorists in the UK he is, he intends to behave in this respect in no way differently from any of the rest.