Paul Barford and his amazing talking arsehole
Here is what could be described as the "detectorist take on Mr. Barford:
Archaeologists are modern day grave robbers and our enemy
British archaeologist living and working in Warsaw Poland. Since the
early 1990s a primary interest has been research on artefact hunting and
collecting and the market in portable antiquities in the international
He calls himself an archaeologist but in reality he spends far more
time writing in his many lying blogs than he does in conducting digs or doing anything else productive.
Paul Barford has built himself a sinister reputation roaming around metal detecting forums causing vexatious problems.
He himself admits he is a collector of antiquities, but in the way he goes
about it, he doesn't want anyone else to enjoy the pleasures of metal
detecting. This guy and all those like him are your worst enemies
Archaeologists are -- lets face it -- legalised tomb and grave robbers. They are rag
and bone men, scavengers looking for buried treasure which activity, they claim, constitutes
an art and a science.
Bullshite. Science they venture to call it -- what rubbish! They know nothing about
real history and whatever they recover, they then use to make unfounded guesses about
Before being allowed to even handle a trowel on a dig site, one would expect that they should have a
degree in history, so they know what they are talking about for a start. Mr. Barford does not have a degree in history or in any other accepted science.
When they get to the Roman layers, seldom do these apprentice archaeologists go past that, in order to find anything Pre-roman (i.e. British). In other words, they are destroying the evidence and are totally incompetent for the interpretation task which they claim as their science.
Paul Barford is not your friend -- he is dangerous, and has his own blogger site:
Just so you know for yourself.
Here"s a sample of what this **** has to say about me -- and accuses me of
inviting every detector user to raid the sites I make the public aware
Now is this what an archaeologist who is supposed to protect historical sites a responsible act? I think not. I think he wrote the following -- to incite irresponsible people to raid
those sites as a cover for him and his arsehole mates -- to go do it themselves. Don't
forget he is himself a collector and has a selfish motive.
Here's what he uttered out of his amazing talking arsehole.
"One of the standard pro-collecting arguments is that metal detectorists
"research history" out in the fields while they are looking for
artefacts to collect. This for the most part is nonsense, they are out
there looking for things to collect. Any research they might do to put
what they find into any context is done outside the normal rigours and
methodologies of historical research, sometimes with tragi-comic
results. Here is a classic example of the genre. There are good reasons
why the History of Geoffrey of Monmouth and related material are not
given much credence these days (not that they were in previous centuries
either)- but some amateur historians simply do not read the kind of
books which explain why. So we get some home-grown pseudo-historigraphy
of the type represented by Alan Wilson. Now this gentleman has written a
number of books on his theories and "has for years attempted to get the
English Establishment to dig a simple hole in order to reveal the truth
about the Kingdom of Wales and create a Tourist Industry" (eh? Tourists
do not go to Wales?). But now we learn from the metal detecting forum
UKDN that he has had help from Alan Hassell a "well-known" metal
detectorist treasure hunter who has a big black box machine that makes
loud noises (but never explains just what it is) which needs a little
boy to carry around (a bit suspicious that). Together they "were able to
find metal where there should not be any". They've just released some
You Tube videos on their exploits (the texts cited below come from the
links given lower down this post).
This Video held back for security and protection of the sites was never
to be released until the Dumb, Stupid, Ignorant Academics and English
Establishment did something to not only protect these sites but also to
reveal the mistakes made in the past by trying to Silence Wilson and
Blackett in the process. [...] Now beyond reasonable doubt the truth of
these sites is revealed and the incompetance of the English
Establishment EXPOSED for all the world to see. We take no pride in
Destroying the name and reputation of Englands Establishment but enough
is enough and they have had many oportunities to talk. Well let them
talk their way out of this one. Don't believe anything the Englsih have
to say about history its all Bullshit and we prove it.
Believe a metal detector instead, eh? Now my understanding is that these
sites are in Wales, so I really do not know why its the English that
are being criticised, and not the local Welsh archaeological services,
but that is by the by. The problem is what these gentlemen have been
telling the authorities they have found (the hyperlinks are mine, not in
the original text)...
King Arthurs grave, The cross that Queen Helena recovered from the Holy
Lands, King Arthurs Crown, and the Ark of the Covenant.[...] Apart from
the Ark of the Covenant we also know where the Tabernacle was concealed.
This is of far greater value than the Ark but for security reasons we
make no mention of this in these 3 short videos.
Now funnily enough the authorities seem not to have taken their
discoveries with the whining black box too seriously, so they decided to
go public with the videos.
We implore the London Establishment and the Media to bring this to the
Worlds Attention to stop mindless individuals armed with metal detectors
destroying these very important historical sites. [...]
deliberation we have decided to put these videos which prove beyond
doubt that there is unexplained reasons why these sites have never been
investigated or even considered worthy of an archaeological dig to
investigate and close the matter.[...] Send links to these clips to
every TV station and media newpapers to help protect these sites and
hope that one day the world can see what is buried in these important
Well, if the machine is detecting metal I suggest that in one case its a collapsed and overgrown barbed wire fence."
The site they are searching here is the area around the Medieval church
of St Peter Ad Montem at Llanharan, Glamorgan, a place the amateur
historians consider to have been Caer Caradoc which they call Arthur's
capital. They dug the church (which they own) here and 'discovered' an
inscribed stone and a cast metal cross. Here's what one blogger has to
say about them:
In 1983, they discovered a burial stone that reads “Rex Artorius, Fili
Mavricius,” which supposedly means “King Arthur, the son of Mauricius
(Meurig).” In 1990, they discovered an electrum cross that reads “Pro
Anima Artorius,” “for the soul of Arthur.” The problem is, as the Bad
Archaeologist points out, that “Rex Artorius, Fili Mavricius” actually
means “King Arthur Mauricius, of the son” and “Pro Anima Artorius” means
“Arthur for the soul.” Oh dear. This is not terribly complicated Latin
grammar, although one could imagine that it might fool people who put
apostrophes in plurals.
Frankly, I suspect that the guy with the wispy unwashed thinning hair
has just written another book (let me see, "Lost Treasures of King
Arthur"?) and these are promotional videos for it. But I'll put links up
here for the value of the comism of the dialogue the metal detectorist
conducts with himself."
Verbal flatulence of such amazing intensity and incredibly prolonged duration must surely command some sort of reluctant respect -- despite its utter deficiency in odor, or in the persistence with which such ridiculous bosh is advanced, with a view toward decptively deluding unsuspecting readers."
Having spent more time than I suspect is justified in editing these passionately written detectorist remarks for publication in my blog, I will add my own weary perspective:
Paul Barford is not a scientist. He does not hold a degree in any recognized science. He does not understand nor use the scientific method in formulating his allegations.
Mr. Barford, in reality, has instead become a rabid and utterly unscrupulous controversialist, who incessantly attacks his betters, in the hope that they will descend so far as to notice his vile and viputerative utterances.
What a terrible waste!
"The Early Slavs" was a great historical and archaeological literary achievement, rivaling Thucididys, and perhaps heralding the beginning of a seminal trilogy comparable to that of John Julius Norwich in his Byzantium trilogy.
Mr. Barford, please reconsider your interests and redirect them toward chronicling the history and development of Eastern European Slavic cultures. There cannot be any doubt (certainly none exists in my mind) that you are among the leading experts in this field.
It is, in my view, well within your capacity to become an historian as famously regarded as Edward Gibbon -- who has ever attained comparable distinction in the field of archaeology?
Given the bitter history of controversy and opposition between us, this remark is posed to you as a challenge.
I hope that you may succeed in giving me grounds tor regret my present view that you are not up to this, and will never again achieve anything of importance.