Dealer Dave: "Attack on Credentials, moi?"

A Californian coinshop keeper who questions my ability to assess what is going on in the shady world of antiquities trading responds to David Knell's questioning of his recent actions ('Blogwarts: the fantasy world of blogging in California', Ancient Heritage):

how could such a call be regarded as an attack on those credentials, unless there is some reason why they will not stand the light of day? I did not really imagine that such could be the case, although John Howland indicated such a suspicion in his comment on this post.

We see here the usual tactic of these immature people, placing the blame on others. He says that it is a metal detectorist (reportedly a former bus driver) who "indicated a suspicion" about me. Mr Welsh has consistently and libellously suggested that I have been employed as an archaeologist under false pretences, alleging that I am barely qualified, for example remarks published on his own blog:

"Warsaw document translator and sometime archaeologist Barford (with a rather brief UK fieldwork career and one book to his credit)" September 19, 2013

"In this Slavic Fascist tradition, it is fitting that Mr. Barford, who failed to matriculate [sic] from the Institute of Archaeology in London, practiced archaeolgical fieldwork for a few years and then moved to Poland, now resides in Warsaw, where he occasionally translates documents". September 13, 2013

"Mr. Barford, who failed to matriculate from the Institute of Archaeology in London, a very well regarded institution. Mr. Barford practiced archaeological fieldwork for several years in Britain,  however his abrasive personality perhaps might be the reason he was not reappointed". August 28, 2013

etc. etc. Asked to provide the basis for his false claim I did not finish my first degree, Mr Welsh falls silent. I am also unclear why he pronounces me a "Slavic Fascist", or how I can be both a "document translator" as well as an "occasional translator". These kind of remarks make very clear what use self-important, vindictive and small-minded fantasists like Welsh would make of any personal information they can get about the people they oppose.  They are like trollbots, trying to obfuscate discussion and deflect it away from the important issues (which is the current business model of the exploitive trade he in involved in) by dragging everything down to a personal level. This basically shows that for all their bluster, these people have not a single decent argument in their defence of what they do, beyond "this is what we've always done".

Blogwarts: the fantasy world of blogging in California'

David Knell ('Blogwarts: the fantasy world of blogging in California', Ancient heritage Thursday, 2 July 2015) takes a welcome cold hard look at the recent pomposity of the Classical Coins blog, run by Dave Welsh, "an engineer who lives in California and deals in coins - the same ACCG member who in all seriousness refuses to accept that the looting of antiquities is primarily driven by those who pay for them". 

He, backed by a coin-collecting lawyer and a metal detectorist, insists that anyone who presumes to oppose his views about ancient artefacts must be able to prove they are nothing less than a qualified archaeologist with a plethora of diplomas before they are even allowed to speak. [...] Welsh regards his blog not as a mere digital platform for his opinions but as some kind of august institution where he reigns as provost [...]After a personal attack on the credentials of Paul Barford (déjà vu?), he graciously granted him permission to enter the institution briefly and reply as a "guest". Welsh posted a special notice - grandly entitled "Comments Policy Exception" - in what to mere mortals like you or me would be just a blog comment. Under the title, in characteristically sententious and laboured prose reminiscent of a 19th-century schoolmarm, he solemnly announced to the gathered assembly: "I have decided to permit Mr. Barford's comments to be published here even though I consider them to contravene the policy of this blog that comments must shed more light, not more heat, upon the subject of the discussion [...] This is a one-time exception and it is not likely that I will extend it to other subjects Mr. Barford may be interested in commenting upon".

Knell goes on to say: "Ah, and there was innocent 21st-century me, naively thinking a blog was just a blog. I feel truly humbled". He stresses:

I am avidly in favour of an intelligent and thoughtful approach to collecting antiquities and thus protect its future. Do these people really think that posing as some pompous institution and fatuously inviting ridicule is the best way to promote its image?

I imagine my readers can guess pretty easily my own answer to that. People like Welsh, Tompa and Sayles are irresponsibly destroying collecting by their activities, and Mr Knell is right to criticise them for it.

Privacy and Blogging

Coinshop owner Dave Welsh on his blog has a post which is a spinoff from one of his comments on the IAPN lobbyist's blog ('Privacy, Qualifications and Blogging Ethics', Ancient Coins Sunday, June 28, 2015) in which he suggests that because someone writes their thoughts on cultural heritage issues, they should expect to have my private life prodded and poked and invaded by "paparazzi".

I do not know whether anyone has noted the sinister implications of the American's insistence that anyone of the 158 million people (at last count) who have a blog are per se "public figures". You see, in US law "Public figures" do not have the same legal protection from slanderous remarks as others. The Disneybreds Over There need their celebrity gossip. Without it their celebrity culture [I use the term loosely] would be stifled. So it stands to reason that in Topsy-Turveyland celebrities should have less protection from any Tom Dick or Hamid that wants to make up scurrilous and damaging stories about them. Over here in the Heart of Civilised Europe, it is more often than not the public figures that bring the libel cases to court.

In my own case, I am not a "public figure" in the American (or any other) sense of the word. In support I argue that I am not recognized as such by that bastion of popular culture - Wikipedia. When a British metal detectorist (we know who you are) attempted to start a wikipedia page for me containing made up and false information, it was deleted on the grounds that I am NOT a public figure. QED.

Welsh considers that "some aspects" of the personal life of a blogger on portable antiquity collecting issues "are indeed relevant, as to how those who read his blog react to it":

These aspects include his qualifications as an archaeologist, and as an observer of (and commentator upon) events relating to antiquities collecting and metal detecting. This archaeologist has not published a resume or curriculum vitae, nor has he disclosed relevant information that would enable readers to make an informed, thoughtful judgement regarding his education, professional experience, political philosophy and motives. All these are essential background necessary to decide how much weight to give to his remarks and opinions. 

 Mr Welsh then goes on to publish several versions of what he considers his own "qualifications" for discussing archaeological methdology, heritage policy, museology, metal detecting, the economic strategy of the Greek government and a whole host of other topics he discusses on his blog and elsewhere.

 I must say when I set about reading a text by Mr Welsh which I discussed on PACHI on Friday, 16th January 2009, ('Roman coin hoards, some US numismophilic erudition'), its author's curriculum vitae was not a document I consulted. That he's an engineer and coinshop owner really had no bearing whatsoever on my decision on how much weight to give to his remarks and opinions.
It was the content of his text ('Preserving Numismatic Context from Destruction by Archaeologists" Dec 15 2007) which I examined. Even if this text had been written by the Duke of Cumberland, or Lord Renfrew of Some Distant Part of Scotland, it would not have made it a better text. The text is (for the reasons I point out in my discussion of it) rubbish, and I do not care who wrote it and what "education, professional experience, political philosophy and motives" or lifetime achievements they may claim in their CV. Rubbish is rubbish. Dodgy arguments are dodgy arguments.  You can see them a mile off.

I think that is a big difference between us (normal people) and coineys. If Peter Tompa says on behalf of the IAPN,  you have to faxbomb the CPAC now, because "if you do not you'll never see another Roman Imperial coin in your life", hundreds of coineys unthinkingly leap into unquestioning action. Because Peter Tompa from Washington DC says so. Nobody questions the statement and whether it even makes sense. Peter Tompa has "authority" in the coiney world, and if he say jump, morons jump.

Mr Welsh is making the same case, for the value of authority. He ignores the fact that a lot of scholarship today is about challenging authority, challenging the traditional views. That conceprt of scholarship seems to be missing from coineyism, where advances are made by comparing new finds against old catalogues, not challengiung the concept of a catalogue.

If however "Blogs which are open to the public (such as this one) are in reality a form of publication", then my main blog has published over 7800 articles allowing the thoughtful reader to decide  for themselveswhat they say about my "education, professional experience, political philosophy and motives".

In fact, the truth of the matter is shown by past behaviour of the antiquity collecting black hat guys. All they want these CVs for is to provide ammunition for personal attack. That is really the only way of responding to decent arguments these people can conceive of. And having a good CV is no protection. So being the heir to the Throne of Great Britain does not protect anyone from vitriolic remarks from the metal detectorists. Lord Colin Renfrew has been attacked by antiquities collectors on innumerable occasions. Mike Heyworth MBE likewise.

The top ten blogs in the Internet are all anonymous. Now you see why.