Arguing Round in Circles

ACCG - Arguing Round in Circles Group

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2013/09/accg-arguing-round-in-circles-group.html
by Paul Barford

The ACCG might as well be renaned the ARCG (Arguing Round in Circles Group). Now their current mouthpiece in his daily onslaught suggests that I am "Missing the Point" (Ancient coins blog Friday, September 27, 2013) when I stress that since (a) the ACCG has now joined ranks with metal detectorists to fight for "collectors rights", and (b) PAS responsible collecting is about preserving archaeological context, it follows that responsible collecting as a whole should logically be defined as doing the same. The ACCG are having none of that.

Collectors acquire these things for their intrinsic value, not because they have an interest in the archaeological context in which they are found.

[...]

To a collector or dealer, provenance is NOT the recording of a findspot. It is instead the collecting history of a coin or other antiquity.

Yes, we can see every dealer's website, every online showcased collection full of that [irony script /off]. And the process of taking it out of the ground, where when and how and under what legal situation, is someow NOT part of that collecting history? It is surely the fundamental first part of the collecting history which determines the licitness of all subsquent transfers of ownership. Meanwhile one has to congratulate Mr Welsh on his astuteness and grasp of the subject in hand. He gets it in one when he suddenly (it seems) discovers:

 Meanwhile Mr. Barford clearly is only able to think about artifacts being illicitly excavated today and later being sold to collectors.

Yes indeedy, that is, in a nutshell, what the whole blog here is about. And one of the problems here is the way that dealers and collectors pretend the problem does not exist, because "coins have been collected since the days of Petrarch don't ya know"? ("consider the immense numbers of unprovenanced coins and other artifacts that were excavated long [ago]") and when the collectors and dealers alike have busily been throwing away of carelessly losing all the documentation of previous ownership, then who is to say what is what? I have addressed this question so many times I really cannot be bothered to repeat myself. ACCG's Welsh is wasting everybody's time and trying to deflect us from getting to the core of the matter by arguing around in circles. It is not me that is "missing the point".



******************
COMMENTARY
******************

It is Mr. Barford and his rabid PACHI blog that have over the years, brought all attempts by myself and other pro-collecting advocates desiring a rational discussion leading to constructive solutions, to "arguing around in circles."

 It is Mr. Barford who has been driven out of every Usenet list and discussion group on the subject of collecting antiquities (including ancient coins), by impromptu coalitions of list members who desired to "get their list" back and to be able to discuss something other than Mr. Barford's anticollecting, antidetecting agenda.

It is Mr. Barford whose unrelenting, obsessive campaign against UK metal detectorists during his brief appointment as an archaeological field work investigator during the 1980s prevented reappointment, and brought about "Barford's Hegira" -- his pilgrimage to Warsaw in then-Communist Poland, where the political climate was more to his liking.



***************

A perceptive British observer who knew Barford in those days recently remarked:

"Critically one has to consider Barford's 1986 flight to the Iron Curtain where the Comrades bankrolled his turgid tome, and gave him a job.

All at a time when the Poles themselves were striving to throw off the terrible yoke of Communism.

It also demonstrates his loyalty to the Free West who taught him how to write his name.

More importantly, in my opinion, his 1986 migration seriously undermines anything he says or writes, for one must always bear in mind that here is the man who forsook the Free West to advance his position.

Perhaps we should all simply leave him to wallow in 'what might have been'?

He cannot change, or alter anything. So let's leave him in post as the Ambassador of Archaeological Absurdity at the Court of Common Sense."

***************


It is Mr. Barford who then found himself politically undermined by the ungrateful Polish people, who soon overthrew their Communist government, ending his brief appointment as Inspector of Monuments under the former Communist regime. He then confronted poverty, and evidently had to scramble hard to make a living for several years, judging from numerous unverified (possibly inaccurate) reports about his activities in that difficult period -- ranging from driving a taxi to washing cars.

There's certainly nothing disgraceful about any of that, and it's admirable in a way that he managed to sustain himself and eventually develop his own private business, translating documents and advising those who need expert professional help with Slavic languages. Mr. Barford is not a lightweight, and he evidently can be a tough, determined fellow when a struggle for survival is necessary.

But none of this was (nor is) archaeology, which Mr. Barford has not professionally practiced since 1986.

It is Barford who now dwells in obscurity in Warschau-Wolkenkukkuksheim where as Vicar of Irrational Archaocentrism, he presides over the Holy Church of Archaelogical Fanaticism -- from time to time issuing lengthy and convoluted encyclicals to guide the faithful, illuminating and defining key tenets of the Gospel and the Revelation of St. Paul. 

There are not very many faithful at the moment -- Nigel Swift, some members of SAFE and perhaps a few other notorious archeoextremists such as Michael Mueller-Karpe. But then, Christianity began with only twelve Disciples.


******************

Missing the Point

ACCG Singing from Same Songsheet as UK's Irresponsible Artefact Hunters

 http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2013/09/accg-singing-from-same-songsheet-as-uks.html

by Paul Barford

  Now we have the ACCG and the dissident detectorists in bed together let us see how they get on singing from the same songsheet.  Dave Welsh lauds the champions of free hate-speech ("Freedom of Speech "California style"...", Ancient Coins (sic) blog, Friday, September 27, 2013). He claims he is a "leading" blog owner:

due to my well known and consistent opposition to Mr. Barford's [...] views, and to his vocal insistence that an unrealistic, rigid requirement for provenance documentation of every artifact (however minor and inexpensive) is a necessity for "ethical collecting." 

But wait a second... That is precisely what in the UK is the definition of responsible artefact hunting, isn't it? The requirement for provenance documentation of every artefact (however minor and inexpensive) taken out of the archaeological record to be collected, the information loss is to be mitigated by reporting the object together with its findspot to the relevant institutions, through the Treasure Trove law in Scotland, the PAS in England and (for the moment) Wales.

The ACCG say they "support" the PAS in England and (while they still have one), in Wales. They constantly say they think every country producing collectable coins and artefacts "should have one". Yet here an ACCG officer distances himself from the underlying principle of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, which is the recording of minor (ie non-Treasure) objects together with their findspots - irrespective of financial value.  )

So, if the UK Code  of Responsible metal Detecting in England and Wales brands those who collect archaeological artefacts (including coins) and do not do these things "irresponsible", surely we would now be justified in applying the PAS message more widely and saying that artefact collectors of any kind who acquire material without such information and curating that information are also irresponsible. That would explain the ACCG's current interest in uniting with the dissident artefact hunters of the UK which reject the concerns we have with rather sketchy application of best practice we see to be the effect of over fifteen years of PAS outreach in much of Britain.


****************
COMMENTARY
****************

 Mr. Barford has entirely missed the point of my remarks regarding provenance.

To a collector or dealer, provenance is NOT the recording of a findspot. It is instead the collecting history of a coin or other antiquity.

 Collectors acquire these things for their intrinsic value, not because they have an interest in the archaeological context in which they are found. That is the domain of archaeologists. Collectors are not opposed to archaeologists getting all the information possible, and are inclined to cooperate with moderate, reasonable requests -- sometimes volunteering to assist in attributing coins discovered in digs.

The problem dividing collectors and archaeologists today is that the provenance of collectible antiquities such as coins does not begin with their being excavated subsequent to 1970. It instead begins with their being excavated without any record of the date and findspot, and in the vast majority of cases this happened long before 1970. But there are no extant records to prove this.

All that collectors and the trade can do about these unprovenanced antiquities is to start to record their collecting history -- what numismatists think of as their provenance.

My proposal was that Classical Coins would introduce a type of coin "ticket" that is folded (as our tickets presently are), but with a record of sale form, including any known prior history, inside the folded over ticket, I went so far as to have a stamp made up for that purpose and still intend to pursue this, however the pressure of events during 2012 and thus far in 2013 has been such that this has not yet been possible.

Meanwhile Mr. Barford clearly is only able to think about artifacts being illicitly excavated today and later being sold to collectors. He does not consider the immense numbers of unprovenanced coins and other artifacts that were excavated long before he was born and in a great many cases, before archaeology was born. These unprovenanced artifacts are the reality that collectors and the dealers who supply them encounter whenever they do business. Very few ancient  coins or other minor collectible artifacts have a provenance record.


**************** 

Freedom of Speech

"California style"

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2013/09/california-style.html
by Paul Barford

It says on the box:

The ACCG was formed to provide a voice for ancient coin collectors on issues that threaten the hobby. [...] [to] provide decision makers in the legislative and administrative branches of government with our own views on the complex issues surrounding preservation of historical sites [...].

I remarked upon how one of the ACCG's officers has been attempting to achieve this aim on behalf of all coin collector members. Today the world wakes to find another one. This one is very revealing of the US mindset. They think we should worship their free-speech ethos, yet are all for suppression of comment when it affects them. So we have here Mr Welsh musing about "Slaying Barford" (Thursday, September 26, 2013), not by the US preferred tactic of remote stealth attacks by political assassination drones, but by "One Detectorist's Revenge".

"Steve Taylor remains the only detectorist to ever have shut Barford up, which he did for about two months in the fall of 2011".

This is quite interesting, I am assuming the ACCG have full awareness of just who it is they are getting (figuratively) into bed with here. I don't expect that, as with our previous discussion of the meaning of the words il/licit, Mr Welsh's memory has retained the full facts about why this blog was hidden (not closed) for several weeks. The Warsaw Prosecutor General still has the files. At the time, readers may remember that Mr Welsh was loud in declaratively offering his support to me and my family as a result of the events following Mr Taylor's actions. Sincerity it seems is not his middle name.

Thus it is we now find ACCG's Mr Welsh lauding UK metal detectorist Steve Taylor for "shutting Barford up" for two months and writing "the Barford Song". Obviously the ability to shout down any critical comment and engage in vulgar insult-throwing is very much to the taste of this Reputable Dealer,  Professional Numismatist (sic) and pillar of the Ancient Coin Collectors of America Guild.  Whether or not that is what will impress the "decision makers in the legislative and administrative branches of government" (in the offices of some of which it would seem are individuals whom are quite frequent visitors to this blog) remains to be seen.

I rather think debating the various views "on the complex issues surrounding preservation of historical sites" involves engagement of the issues involved, not shouting down those who raise them and running away from providing an alternative reasoned argument. All the time in this recent discussion with ACCG spokesmen Wayne Sayles, Peter Tompa and Dave Welsh (and Sock-puppet-Arthur through the medium of CPO) about possible ways forward for the antiquities market we see nothing but sniping, insults and ad hominem attacks.


****************
COMMENTARY
****************


Hmmm ....

Evidently there is still what one might describe as "a very raw nerve" in the much-scarred psyche of Mr. Barford, with respect to this particular individual.

Now reading what Paul has just posted in his PACHI blog, one might think that I had fulsomely (and malevolently) praised UK metal detectorist Steve Taylor for his 2011 legal confrontation with Mr. Barford and for his ongoing efforts to mock, ridicule and deride Mr. Barford, in particular through "The Barford Song" -- which Taylor recorded as a video clip and then posted to YouTube, where it has attracted considerably more interest than it deserved.

No doubt Steve Taylor has (through his ongoing confrontation with Barford) become something of a cult hero to a certain segment of the detectorist community, which understandably resents the relentless and fierce criticism that Mr. Barford incessantly directs toward metal detecting and the manner in which artifacts found by metal detectorists are subsequently dealt with.

But what did I actually say, to provoke such a vehemently confrontational response from Mr. Barford, positively reeking of his anti-American, anti-Californian, anti-trade and anti-collecting prejudice?

 On September 19, I recorded my thoughts regarding "The Barford Song:"

"This bit of disreputable doggerel says something unpleasant about the resentment (and perhaps even hatred) that the metal-detectorist community feels toward Mr. Barford and his constant sniping criticism. In the end it does their cause no credit, tending instead to create an impression that some metal-detectorists perhaps are not very nice people."

That's a significantly negative comment, by no means amounting to '... lauding UK metal detectorist Steve Taylor for ...  writing "the Barford Song" ', as Mr. Barford alleged in his blog post.

Going back to Taylor's 2011 efforts to intimidate Barford by threatening legal action for copyright infringement, I did not then (and do not now) approve of any effort to silence Mr. Barford by preventing him from presenting his opinions in his PACHI blog. As Barford himself observes, "... Mr Welsh was loud in declaratively offering his support to me and my family as a result of the events following Mr Taylor's actions."

Indeed I was, and so I remain. Freedom of speech is a longstanding, vital American tradition and the subject of the First Amendment in our hallowed Bill of Rights.

In her biography on Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. That remains my view of  Taylor's efforts to intimidate Barford, and to force him to shut down his "lying blog."

Returning to the subject of  freedom of speech, that fundamental right applies to me just as much as it does to Mr. Barford -- and even to Mr. Taylor. That freedom clearly justified my discussing the ongoing confrontation between these two individuals as a news item, in the factual terms quoted below:

 ' "Barford Slayer" is going a bit far, because the man is still alive -- but Steve Taylor remains the only detectorist to ever have shut Barford up, which he did for about two months in the fall of 2011.'

What Mr. Barford apparently did not realize is that he is so cordially disliked and hotly resented (perhaps hated might be a more accurate word) by the UK detectorist community, that many of its members are constantly preoccupied with publicly discussing and venting their outrage at his constant sniping criticism. They seize every opportunity to express their outrage in communications with other detectorists, in  comments posted to blogs such as mine, and in private messages to discussion list owners and blog owners.

I am a leading example of the latter, due to my well known and consistent opposition to Mr. Barford's anticollecting views, and to his vocal insistence that an unrealistic, rigid requirement for provenance documentation of every artifact (however minor and inexpensive) is a necessity for "ethical collecting." I have accordingly gotten a great deal of private message traffic recently regarding Steve Taylor's feud with Mr. Barford.

Mr. Barford is a controversial public figure, continually "in the news" because of  his confrontational approach toward antiquities collecting and metal detecting. I previously observed that he apparently maintains a double standard in his views regarding the law,

"Mr. Barford believes that the law is something that does not apply equally to everyone. It applies strictly and harshly to collectors and the antiquities trade, and loosely and elastically to archaeologists and cultural property retentionists, according to his point of view."

The same evidently can justly be observed regarding Barford's attitude toward criticism and derogatory
statements made against individuals and organizations. Harsh criticism may justly amd appropriately be directed toward collectors, the antiquities trade and metal detectorists. However Barford himself and other anticollecting archaeologists are "off limits," and their targets are not allowed to reply in kind.

It seems to me that the last word on THAT sort of attitude was spoken long ago by a great American philosopher, Frederick August Campbell.


****************

Slaying Barford

One Detectorist's Revenge

Re: Paul Barford's new blog « Reply #5 on: October 13, 2011, 10:15:32 PM » by Steve Taylor of Cheltenham, UK

---

Paul is a very intelligent  guy, and is very careful in what he writes, and usually walks a very fine line!. Problem was when he took me on, I forced him to make a few serious errors.

He had already copied and pasted a few of my video's and picture's on his blog which I sent him an invoice for, which was £500 per image, which is what I have received from  various newspapers and magazines over the years, so that is my going rate. He also acknowledged the fact in his usually mocking fashion on his blog, so he knew my fee.

3 week later he uploaded over 120 photo's from mynetalbum, which works out at £60,000, so I told him to pay me £10,000 in an out of court settlement or we go through the courts for a full settlement, that seems fair to me.

When other people have complained in the past of copyright infringements he has always claimed it was  'Fair use' and got away with it. With me it was different as he added 3 items of treasure, which were clearly not mine. He thought if he did this, I may just get me arrested for not declaring  items under the Treasure Act,  this is what they call  perverting the course of Justice or Malicious falsehoods, completely different to Fair use.

So I have him by the balls at the moment  

I gave Paul the choice of downing his blog or paying me for the copyright of images he had  used, but he is now accusing me of blackmail for giving him the choice, Oh well I thought I may save him a few quid.

I also sent a message to Google to remove the images which they did, and they have a record of the infringement, but 1900 people viewed his blog so I am now going for damages and copyright infringement big time.


****************
COMMENTARY
****************


"Barford Slayer" is going a bit far, because the man is still alive -- but Steve Taylor remains the only detectorist to ever have shut Barford up, which he did for about two months in the fall of 2011.

Steve is also renowned in detectorist circles as the composer (and performer) of The Barford Song .



**************** 

His Holiness

Bemused by the notoriety of the Polish Popgun, possessor of the one and only ATA, it occurred to me that those who resent the authoritarian perspective and anticollecting views of this failed former archaeologist might prefer a more compact manner of reference to his archaeoblogging persona.


I  therefore suggest that the derogatory prefix "arse" be omitted as unnecessary (being understood), and that Mr. Barford should henceforth be described as "His Holiness." 

Putting a Title on it

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2013/09/us-dealer-so-angry-he-forgot-to-put.html
by Paul Barford

US Dealer so Anxious to Dodge the Issue, he Forgot to put a Title on it

As might be expected, in a text without a title, with reference to the post below, ACCG dealer Dave Welsh dodges the questions concerning his irrational turns and twists about whether he has worked out a method of implementing registration of collecting histories for the artefacts sold by ACCG (or any other) dealers in the US or not. He's so keen to throw out the insults, he's not even bothered to try and understand the import of his own words, shielding himself by saying he's quoted "out of context" (that seems to mean unlike him, I do not cut and paste the whole of his posts, merely giving a link to where the savvy reader can find them to judge the context for themselves).


Dave Welsh apparently does not get the point of the bit where I speak (actually using rhetorical questions as the more intelligent among my readers will have recognised) of the importance of bulk lots of metal artefacts in untangling the artefact looting industry. It seems Welsh is not prepared to accept the validity of the point made, the reader may very well wonder why.

I (rhetorically) ask about the relationship of a group of generic looted antiquities from the Balkans and a generic bulk lot sold on the international dugup antiquity market. Welsh unthinkingly reposts:

Obviously, neither I nor any other collector or dealer could possibly answer such a barrage of questions, as Barford well knows.

But then, surely, it is precisely on the ability to answer precisely that question that any assertion of licitness of the market relies. How can one claim to be buying ethically (watch the lips) loose coins on today's market without having the answer to precisely those questions. Mr Welsh himself describes himself  ("A Disastrous Legal Decision", Tuesday, August 09, 2011) as a "well informed participant in the US ancient coin market".

To turn one of Welsh's favourite arguments around, there is no scientific proof that a given bulk lot of dirt encrusted or cleaned coins does not come from the looting of sites in the Balkans or (say) Near East. In which case, one cannot say that they ARE licit in origin (or even that they may be presumed to be). That is not "scientific". Only coins with firmly established and documented licit origins can enjoy that status. No ethical dealer surely should be staking their reputation on anything else - leave selling the unpapered artefacts up to the many cowboys.

The rest of Welsh's post is the same old misinformed ad hominem rubbish with which those involved in the US with the wholesale import of masses of foreign dugup ancient coins and speaking for all US collectors of such items have recently begun to shield themselves.

It is not up to Paul Barford to provide "practical, constructive and economically sensible answers" to the licit coin industry's problems with its sources of supply. That surely is up to coin dealers and collectors themselves to get on and do it instead of whinging, whining and playing the victim. Nobody is going to present them with a ready-made answer on a plate. They have to do this themselves. Can they? or are they eternally going to try and stave off the problem by challenging the Department of State of their  own government (and hang the rest of the world) and hurling insults?

When are they going to buckle down to cleaning up their industry, making it at last transparent and beyond reproach? Surely the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild owes it to their member collectors? How do they propose doing this, or are they going to continue to deny that it is possible to clean up the US coin market? What do truly responsible collectors say about that?  



****************
COMMENTARY
****************


My, oh my.  Let's take a careful look at the hysterical and misleading nonsense which Mr. Barford's ATA has here uttered:

"[Quoting me] Obviously, neither I nor any other collector or dealer could possibly answer such a barrage of questions, as Barford well knows.

But then, surely, it is precisely on the ability to answer precisely that question that any assertion of licitness of the market relies. How can one claim to be buying ethically (watch the lips) loose coins on today's market without having the answer to precisely those questions. Mr Welsh himself describes himself  ("A Disastrous Legal Decision", Tuesday, August 09, 2011) as a "well informed participant in the US ancient coin market".

To begin with, the entire thesis of Barfy's ATA utterance is that "licitness of the market" depends upon being able to provide documentary evidence of the "provenance" of antiquities (coins, for example) traded in that market.

This utterance is, provably and incontrovertibly, a lie. Worse, it is provably a lie brazenly and with the clear and deliberate intention of deception, uttered in full knowledge of the facts which legally define its falsehood.

"Licit" is a word which as a very simple and unambiguous meaning. That meaning is:

In accordance with the requirements of the law(s) in effect in the jurisdiction(s) concerned.

Now that IS the meaning, and the whole meaning, of the word "Licit." The law controls that meaning.

Neither Mr. Barford, his ATA nor any other organ, individual or organization have any right whatsoever to assert that there is any other meaning of the word "Licit."

"Licitness" is not something that any individual archaeologist, whether a contemptible failed pretender such as Barford, or a real and distinguished achiever in the field, determines. It is, instead, determined by the legislative institutions of society.

The deliberately deceptive misuse of such prejudicial terminology is one of the diagnostic hallmarks of unscrupulous revolutionary societies. Without taking this particular example too far, it may accurately be observed that both the 20th century Fascist and Communist parties employed such unscrupulous tactics.

Mr. Barford is, in the long and thoroughly considered opinion of this observer, a person with an instinctive adversion to traditional Anglo-Saxon concepts of the rule of law and the importance of personal liberty.

His decision to leave the democratic UK to relocate to Communist Poland in the 1980s reveals his essentially statist, authoritarian perspective.

Time has passed Mr. Barford by. No matter how frustrated or angry he becomes, there will never again be a regime in Poland, still less anywhere else in Europe, conforming to his views on antiquities collecting.

Dave Welsh

Documenting Collecting History

ACCG Officer, Dealer Dave Welsh on Documenting Collecting History of Dugups

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2013/09/accg-officer-dealer-dave-welsh-on.html
by Paul Barford

ACCG Officer and Classical Coin dealer Dave Welsh seems to change his mind from time to time on the issue of making a running record embodying the collecting history of ancient coins already on the market allowing the identification of items freshly surfacing "from underground" without any such record (thus prompting closer scrutiny of their origins and establishment of their licit origins - or otherwise).  Here he is in accusatory tone three years ago:"Looting: The Essence of the Lie", Friday, May 28, 2010:

"no one is likely to pay such attention to the provenance of a common ancient coin that may be worth no more than one pound sterling".

Then less than a year later we see in his "Ancient Coins" blog an apparent change of view: "The Logistics of Provenance", Friday, February 04, 2011

"It would presently be technically and economically feasible to document acquisition of a coin at a cost of between $10.00 and $17.00 per coin in a manner which should satisfy any reasonable provenance requirement, with traceability to its particular date of acquisition. [...]  The above, I believe, clearly delineates what is presently feasible in a manner independent of the exact details of how a documentation database would be managed and who would be responsible for it. Such details obviously must be discussed and resolved, however they won’t affect the economic conclusion. The current value threshold at which the cost of provenance documentation would be accepted by large numbers of collectors is roughly $85.00 per coin. Very large numbers of ancient coins are presently being traded at prices below $85.00 per coin. Classical Coins presently sells large numbers of coins at prices below $50.00 per coin, and I am not including “specials” (multiple coin lots) for which certification is not available. Clearly there is a “value threshold” that must be considered, and any demand that documentation be provided for a transaction to be licit becomes economically unreasonable below that threshold.

but then, is it not these bulk lots (potentially derived from mass metal detecting and selection of better items from them) that are a fundamental area of concern? What is the cause of the looting at sites like Archar? What is the product of such activity, and where are the artefacts resulting from this activity ending up? Where is the disconnect between bulk lots on the US and western European market and the bulk lots of artefacts looted out of sites in the Balkans and elsewhere? [For part of my discussion of what he said in this post, see here: "Two Minute Due Diligence" Tuesday, 8 February 2011, Mr Welsh's dismissive reply is here].  Four days later, Mr Welsh makes an announcement ("The Mania for Provenance", Tuesday, February 08, 2011): 

"Whilst I have hitherto resisted attempts to impose mandatory provenance documentation on grounds of feasibility, I am pleased to report that there are now realistic grounds to believe that transition to a full disclosure of provenance so far as it is known can feasibly be provided to every buyer without a significant increase in the cost of online transactions. Over a long period of time that would presumably address nearly all licitness concerns. The question now becomes whether such incremental provenance documentation would be satisfactory. Feasiblity does not equate to zero cost. "Per transaction documentation" would not be free, though its cost might be reasonable. If it became apparent that incremental provenance documentation might become a rational basis for a settlement of differences, it would be possible to expand upon these observations". 

(there is an interesting exchange in the comments under this post) [Welsh's announcement is discussed here: Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues: Collecting History ...]

Obviously incremental provenance documentation as an object moves from one licit source to another is indeed the only rational basis not only "for a settlement of differences", but a fully ethical collecting. The world awaited with bated breathh the expansion on those "observations". We waited, and we waited...

Five months later Mr Welsh returned to the issue, but without adding much 'meat' to his earlier comments ("A Disastrous Legal Decision", Tuesday, August 09, 2011): 

"I can only present my own thoughts as those of a well informed participant in the US ancient coin market. I have been mulling over this possibility for quite some time, and have arrived at some very important conclusions. [...] I propose the following as a sensible, ethical, lawful and constructive approach to be pursued by the US numismatic community: no coin shall leave our borders without right of repatriation [sic!] [...]  I believe that the above proposals impose an ethical obligation upon me to propose a system of tracing provenance which will significantly alleviate (although not entirely eliminate) the effects of forthcoming import restrictions. I have previously discussed this issue [...] It would be feasible to provide a system of tracing provenance which would document licit acquisition of coins by dealers and their subsequent licit acquisition by collectors".

Lest, however it be thought that what the dealer is suggesting is in any way increased transparency of the market, symptoms of paranoia are not absent. He continues:

"One of the key issues in doing so is that such transactions should not be disclosed to opponents of private collecting and opponents [of] the free numismatic market. This must not become a "propaganda tool." The way to accomplish the desired result without such a transgression is to create a "coin ticket" that is not disclosed to anyone other than the collector who acquires the coin. I know how to do this, and intend to do so, and to eventually disclose the essential elements of this "coin ticket" in such a manner that they may freely be provided by every dealer, and I accept an ethical obligation to do so. Clearly such a declaration of intent cannot be taken lightly and the necessary approach must be one which is practical for most dealers. The technical aspects are far less formidable than the ethical issues involved. It can, and soon will, be done".

but that was two years ago and it was not.

Then we had the memorable beginning of his latest name-calling onslaught on this writer for suggesting that a discipline does not consist of making a loose heap of "data" of unknown origin. Welsh wrote in "Numismatics Is A  Science" (Thursday, August 15, 2013) something diametrically opposed to what he had written just two years earlier. Now he's given up on his "ethical obligation' to share the technology he swore blind he had devised, showing what a lot of hot air all these ACCG declarations really are:

"Numismatic experts have observed that creating and maintaining such provenance records for objects of small value (nearly all ancient coins, for example) isn't economically feasible".

Then, wading thigh-deep into the gutter, the ACCG's Welsh - now allied with a random bunch of naysaying metal detectorists from both sides of the Atlantic (!) suggest that it is an outsider (me) that should be tasked ("Let's turn the volume down", Ancient coins (sic) blog, Thursday, September 19, 2013) with "shedding more real light upon the goal of creating a practical provenancing system for ancient artifacts", rather than the dealers and collectors that would profit from a transparently licit trade.

But then his thinking about the topic seems to be lost in the opening sentence of his post "scumbags" when he got waylaid by more name-calling, and never finished the sentence:

Mr. Barford clearly does not understand that a practical provenancing system for ancient artifacts involves recording their discovery in a manner equivalent to what he advocates, which however is both feasible and affordable [....] 

leaving it hanging in the air whether today he thinks it is possible or is impossible. I guess we'll never know what the ACCG dealer actually thinks until he gets the bile and frustrations (they deleted his wikipedia page) out of his system and begins writing about "Ancient coins".








***************
COMMENTARY
***************


As usual, Mr. Barford has (in this post to his notorious blog) wandered here and there, through statements which when taken in context are easily understandable and sensible, seeking to represent them as inconsistent and unreasonable.

The Polish Popgun then restarts his broken-record autoplay system and writes:

"... is it not these bulk lots (potentially derived from mass metal detecting and selection of better items from them) that are a fundamental area of concern? What is the cause of the looting at sites like Archar? What is the product of such activity, and where are the artefacts resulting from this activity ending up? Where is the disconnect between bulk lots on the US and western European market and the bulk lots of artefacts looted out of sites in the Balkans and elsewhere?"

Obviously, neither I nor any other collector or dealer could possibly answer such a barrage of questions, as Barford well knows.

When it comes to posing unanswerable questions, Barford clearly considers himself an expert. But when it comes to providing answers, what constructive answers does he have? What has he ever contributed to resolving the significant concerns regarding looting which divide the archaeological and collecting communities?

The resolution of these concerns does not any need more of Mr. Barford's tricky and malicious  questions. Practical, constructive and economically sensible answers are instead required. Mr. Barford never has attempted to provide such useful answers.

Barford in reality does not want to see these concerns resolved, for then there would be no reason at all for anyone to pay attention to him and his pretensions to still be regarded as an archaeologist, thirty years after his last (when gainfully employed) fieldwork activities in the UK. His career as an archaeologist was brief and apart from one rather good book, utterly undistinguished.

Mr. Barfords' current career as a translator of documents must not be successful either, judging from the large amount of free time he has to devote to composition of the snarling screeds filling his PACHI blog. As Dorothy King observed, his tormented soul is filled with and blackened by anger -- anger which pervades his every utterance, and then is reflected back at him with interest by those whom he incessantly scoffs at, denigrates and insults.



***************

Scumbags

Barford describes this observer and his associates as "scumbags"  -- i.e. used condoms.

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2013/09/practical-provenancing-and-scumbags.html
by Paul Barford

"Practical Provenancing" and Scumbags

Dealer Dave Welsh suggests that in discussing in critical terms the doings of artefact hunters and no-questions -asked dealers, this blog and its author is in some way "drowning every attempt at balanced discussion" and generating a flood (sic) "of distracting and unnecessary heat".

It would be interesting to hear from Mr Welsh where he currently sees such a "balanced discussion" going on at the moment. In the hallowed hallways of the American Cultural Property Research Institute maybe ? (moribund institution.) On the public forum of the Portable Antiquities Scheme where archaeology and public interest can interact maybe ? (closed down.) On a forum run by the AIA? On a forum run by one of the major dealers' associations? In the ranks of the FMDAC? On the Unidroit-L discussion list maybe, with the involvement of archaeologists, collectors and dealers? Where can Mr Welsh take part in a cool, calm balanced discussion of the many issues connected with the treatment of the archaeological resource as a source of collectables? I think we would all love to hear of such a place where such a discussion is going on.I think we'd all like to acquaint ourselves with the arguments of those taking part, who are they?

I have a bit of experience on moderated forums: such as Britarch (where I first began such discussions with artefact hunters and their supporters),  the BAJR forum, The PAS Forums, Moneta-L, Unidroit-L, several metal detecting forums, and there was a forum associated with the Time Team programmes, all moderated. The same things happened on each. A group of loudmouth artefact hunters (or coin collectors) would gang up on anyone representing a view which they see as potentially threatening the status quo and try various tactics to deflect discussion in different directions and becoming at times quite aggressive. Obviously for forums full of metal detectorists and their "partners", the "trolls" to be fought are the minority element that is trying to discuss elements of practice and policy that it does not suit artefact hunters and their partners to be discussed. The scene is set for any attempt at reasonable and open discussion to descend into pandemonium. Sometimes the moderators stepped in and stopped the naysayers and trouble-makers, mostly they did not.

The general ethos is quite well captured by Dr Roger Pearse, writing of the same thing in another context  here: 

I am now considering ceasing contributing to Wikipedia. My recent experience is that it is becoming counter-productive for those with a bit of education to contribute, while the results of our labour will generally belong to whichever troll is most determined to end up in control of an article. The educated end up acting as research assistants for trolls, which is a role few of us would care to fill. Attempts to fight back are simply met with a storm of harassment [...]. The scumbag can always wear down the person who has something real to offer, and much else to do. As far as I know, I am one of the last online scholars to attempt to contribute. I will no longer do so. In practice, it seems that educated people cannot edit Wikipedia. Until this problem is addressed by the owners of Wikipedia, it is a mistake for us to try. It should be sobering for us all to find, in gatherings online of scholars, that wikipedia is treated as "something we couldn't edit". This humorous page on " "Gaming Wikipedia" outlines precisely what people face if they do.

Dealer Dave Welsh has the idea that somebody here is supposed to "serve" the interests of the coin industry:

Mr. Barford would more effectively advance his cause if he would turn the volume down, and focus on shedding more real light upon the goal of creating a practical provenancing system for ancient artifacts. 

Three points. Firstly, my "cause" is obviously not understood by Mr Welsh. Secondly it is not possible to "provenance" an artefact once it has been hoiked out of the ground and surfaced on some distant foreign market. Thirdly, if we are talking about making a record of coins with known collecting histories (a register of artefacts out of the ground at a certain cut-off date) then I have already attempted several years ago to present just such ideas on his Unidroit-L forum (when challenged by Welsh himself) . He has reorganized the list archives, so it is now extremely difficult (or at least time-consuning) to find the several interlocking threads which this attempt developed into. It really was a bit of a waste of my time, since I was the only person on the list at the time interested in exploring the idea. The rest of the dealers and collectors on the list were adamant on shouting down the very notion as "unworkable" and "too expensive for cheap coins" and instead of compromise attempted to halt the discussion, that unfortunately included a large number of one-sided posts by the list "moderator" himself. Hardly conducive conditions for any kind of balanced discussion and compromise.

Once again we see these people demanding to be handed a solution on a plate, the coin industry, istead of devolping a solution itself, once again demands that somebody else creatres it for them. But even if they did, there is no guarantee in present circumstances that it will be used. For archaeology, the cheapest solution would be to shut down the market, not investing our money and time into legitimising it. Surely then, if coin dealers are to profit from a continuation of the market, they are the ones that should invest in making it more sustainable.

As I have said many times, this blog is here because of my past experience on "moderated' lists of the Unidroit-L ilk, where all the time I am on the losing side, hounded by people that experience shows that the moderators are not going to moderate. I am no longer keen to talk with these people. Been there, done it, heard all they have to offer, got the scars. Others can do talk with them, try to reason with them. The PAS shows there are certain limits beyond which one cannot expect co-operation and understanding. I have my own little bit of the internet, if Mr Welsh or anyone else thinks there is "too much heat" here, then they can stop reading and go elsewhere. Nobody makes them read this stuff.

Readers might like to look at the (many) posts Mr Welsh makes to his own discussion list and blog. There is a reason why US or any other archaeologists are not exactly crowding onto the Unidroit-L discussion list to hear what the members think, could it be the entirely hostile approach of the list moderator to archaeology, archaeologists and preservation issues revealed by his posts? Have a look at Mr Welsh's posts on his own list in the years before I ventured to join it. Who has been putting the "heat" on?

This is the first thread I took part in over on Unidroit-L, it goes downhill from here until, fed up with the unchecked insults of member Farhad Assar, I stopped contributing to the list - which is pretty silent these days. 



***************
COMMENTARY
***************

Mr. Barford clearly does not understand that a practical provenancing system for ancient artifacts involves recording their discovery in a manner equivalent to what he advocates, which however is both feasible and affordable -- two attributes that the Polish Popgun never considers, since his real (though undisclosed) goal is to burden collectors and the trade supplying them with so many obligations and difficulties as to make ancient artifacts collecting an onerous and disagreeable experience.

Barfy and his ATA -- like a broken record -- play the same song over and over, ad nauseam. That personality defect explains why outraged listmembers have, after a short time, forcefully driven him out of every Usenet discussion list to which he has ever posted messages.

Barfy's online persona is exceedingly repulsive to normal human beings, not merely because of his obnoxious personality but also because his ceaseless boring utterances "take over" a discussion list to such an extent that the listmembers and listowner will not accept the resulting disruption.

Hence he revealingly only posts his repetitive screeds in a blog that he controls. Barfy covertly desires to control everyone (and everything) relating to antiquities collecting and metal detecting, through the lash of the massively unpleasant flood of flatulence uttered from his ATA.


***************