Privacy, Qualifications and Blogging Ethics
Everyone has an inherent "right to privacy," but public figures must be prepared for the reality that the public is interested in them, and that this affects their right to privacy. Actors, actresses, politicians and royalty have long been plagued by "paparazzi" and understandably resent such uninvited attention.
Relatively recently, the Internet has provided a new venue for becoming a public figure: the web log, or "blog."
Blogs began as personal logs and repositories of information found on the Internet, interspersed with commentary regarding the blogger's interpretations of logged items, personal interests and concerns. The great majority of blogs are still personally oriented, and are frequently kept private - only being shared with a few friends and associates.
Blogs which are open to the public (such as this one) are in reality a form of publication. Very often such blogs address a particular interest of the blogger -- in the case of this blog, collecting and dealing in ancient coins. The majority of problems and concerns in these interest areas now center upon cultural property law, and the one-sided conflict between archaeology and collecting. Archaeologists are on the attack, while advocates of collecting do their best to present the merits of this avocation and to highlight inconsistencies and inequities in the demands of archaeology's extremists.
One such extremist has recently restated a longstanding, oft-repeated view that "his personal life" has nothing to do with what he posts in his blog. Certainly, he needs no one's permission to say there whatever he likes. However, some aspects of what he considers to be "his personal life" 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.
He clearly has developed a "public," which includes those who unreservedly applaud his crusades for "responsible collecting" and against "irresponsible metal detecting." It also includes many who see some merit in his concerns, but dislike his confrontational manner of presentation. It further includes many who see little merit in his views and concerns, instead regarding him as an offensive pest and perhaps even a public nuisance.
Whether this archaeologist likes it or not, he has deliberately and intentionally made himself a public figure through his blogging activities, and must accept the consequences. These include public interest in learning more about his education, professional experience, political philosophy and motives, and a tendency to wonder why he is reluctant to make this information public.
In this observer's opinion, it is at best disingenuous to publish a blog that is intended to have a wide readership, and at the same time insist upon keeping one's own background and qualifications (as an expert observer upon the blog's subject) secret. That certainly isn't my conception of "best practice" where blogging ethics are concerned, and is especially inappropriate when a blogger frequently criticizes (and even castigates) others for not following "best practice" in their activities.
Those whom this blogger criticizes have not maintained such a reserve regarding their own backgrounds, and have considered it proper to publicly disclose their qualifications.
_____________________
Here it is clearly appropriate to once again present my own qualifications as a numismatist and numismatic blogger, in a convenient Internet-accessible public disclosure of my background.
My numismatic background and interests are outlined here:
http://www.classicalcoins.com/About.html
My focus upon education as a primary objective of my numismatic website begins here:
http://www.classicalcoins.com/page51.html
My focus on numismatic research and information-sharing is apparent in these pages:
http://www.classicalcoins.com/blackmuseum.html
http://www.classicalcoins.com/research.html
http://www.classicalcoins.com/bronze_disease.html
My technical background is the focus of the ATM consultancy website:
http://www.apptechman.com/
That background is additionally discussed here:
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/David-Welsh/-44187
The most recent [2006] version of my technical resume is available here:
http://www.classicalcoins.com/Resume.html
Readers who play chess might be interested in the best-known game of my brief career as a competitive chess player: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1586750
While this has nothing to do with numismatic blogging qualifications, it gives insight into the diversity of my interests. This game received the Brilliancy Prize at the 1968 U. S. Open and was published in that year's Chess Informant. After I stopped playing competitively, I concentrated on furthering the development of computer chess.
********************UPDATE 7/2/2015********************
The archaeo-blogger referred to in this post apparently still is not convinced that it is important for him to disclose his credentials as an archaeologist, so that the public may make an informed, thoughtful judgement regarding his education, professional experience, political philosophy and motives.
This, despite a great deal of discussion in the comments section of this blog.
Perhaps he believes that there is one set of blogging ethics for "archaeologists," and another for everyone else. What he has posted in his blog recently indicates that he instead prefers to further criticize and attempt to ridicule this observer and other pro-collecting advocates.
One would think that the public which reads his blog would eventually realize that this blogger is continuing to construct an immense edifice of highly controversial opinionating, without providing any publicly visible foundation to substantiate his pretensions to being an archaeologist.
He seems to think that this omission can instead be dealt with by challenging the traditional definition of numismatics as the collecting and study of coins, and the traditional definition of "professional numismatists" as those who make their living, or a significant part thereof, dealing in coins or writing about them.
According to this archaeo-blogger, "numismatics" should instead be regarded as an academic discipline carried on by those who have degrees in that subject, or in archaeology and related disciplines, and contribute by presenting papers at academic or archaeological conferences relating to numismatics. He goes on to say: "The problem is that elsewhere, and in the US particularly (but not exclusively) mere coin collecting is also called "numismatics". Dealer Dave Welsh wants coin selling to also be called "numismatics". I suppose a parallel would be stamp collecting which its practitioners call "philately". But just using a catalogue to put rectangles of paper with colourful pictures of butterflies (or round pieces of metal with blurred pictures of Roman emperors) in order in an album/coin folder or tray is not really any kind of "study" and any "methodology" of this kind of ordering is the most primitive."
I can only observe that a great many real numismatists will regard these remarks as an almost incredible intersection of arrogance and ignorance.
********************Update 7/4/2015******************
David Knell, a supporter of the agenda of the archaeoblogger referred to above, has taken umbrage at my views on qualifications and blogging ethics:
http://ancient-heritage.blogspot.com/2015/07/hollyblog-fantasy-world-of-blogging-in.html
It is very interesting, and somewhat puzzling, to observe that he regards a call for this archaeoblogger to publicly disclose his credentials as an archaeologist, as amounting to a personal attack on his credentials. Now, 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.
My concern was rather that the public, seeing this archaeoblogger's identification of himself as an "archaeologist," may imagine him to be a peer of luminaries such as Lord Renfrew and Roger Bland, and ought to be able to accurately assess for themselves his education, professional experience, political philosophy and motives.
Then Mr. Knell went on to sarcastically characterize my approach toward managing comments to this blog as being "pompous." He ended by saying:
"Ah, and there was innocent 21st-century me, naively thinking a blog was just a blog."
Perhaps Mr. Knell does not notice pomposity or arrogance in this archaeoblogger's blog utterances, however others do, and it is quite clear that this "archaeologist" does not envision his venue as being "just a blog," but instead as a forum for conducting a crusade (some might go so far as to characterize it as a jihad) against antiquities collecting and metal detecting. As such, it has become widely known and in the opinion of many opponents of antiquities collecting, important.
Given the combative tone of the archaeoblogger's comments toward which my comments policy statement was directed, it was important to explain to other commenters why I had allowed those comments to be published.
Relatively recently, the Internet has provided a new venue for becoming a public figure: the web log, or "blog."
Blogs began as personal logs and repositories of information found on the Internet, interspersed with commentary regarding the blogger's interpretations of logged items, personal interests and concerns. The great majority of blogs are still personally oriented, and are frequently kept private - only being shared with a few friends and associates.
Blogs which are open to the public (such as this one) are in reality a form of publication. Very often such blogs address a particular interest of the blogger -- in the case of this blog, collecting and dealing in ancient coins. The majority of problems and concerns in these interest areas now center upon cultural property law, and the one-sided conflict between archaeology and collecting. Archaeologists are on the attack, while advocates of collecting do their best to present the merits of this avocation and to highlight inconsistencies and inequities in the demands of archaeology's extremists.
One such extremist has recently restated a longstanding, oft-repeated view that "his personal life" has nothing to do with what he posts in his blog. Certainly, he needs no one's permission to say there whatever he likes. However, some aspects of what he considers to be "his personal life" 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.
He clearly has developed a "public," which includes those who unreservedly applaud his crusades for "responsible collecting" and against "irresponsible metal detecting." It also includes many who see some merit in his concerns, but dislike his confrontational manner of presentation. It further includes many who see little merit in his views and concerns, instead regarding him as an offensive pest and perhaps even a public nuisance.
Whether this archaeologist likes it or not, he has deliberately and intentionally made himself a public figure through his blogging activities, and must accept the consequences. These include public interest in learning more about his education, professional experience, political philosophy and motives, and a tendency to wonder why he is reluctant to make this information public.
In this observer's opinion, it is at best disingenuous to publish a blog that is intended to have a wide readership, and at the same time insist upon keeping one's own background and qualifications (as an expert observer upon the blog's subject) secret. That certainly isn't my conception of "best practice" where blogging ethics are concerned, and is especially inappropriate when a blogger frequently criticizes (and even castigates) others for not following "best practice" in their activities.
Those whom this blogger criticizes have not maintained such a reserve regarding their own backgrounds, and have considered it proper to publicly disclose their qualifications.
_____________________
Here it is clearly appropriate to once again present my own qualifications as a numismatist and numismatic blogger, in a convenient Internet-accessible public disclosure of my background.
My numismatic background and interests are outlined here:
http://www.classicalcoins.com/About.html
My focus upon education as a primary objective of my numismatic website begins here:
http://www.classicalcoins.com/page51.html
My focus on numismatic research and information-sharing is apparent in these pages:
http://www.classicalcoins.com/blackmuseum.html
http://www.classicalcoins.com/research.html
http://www.classicalcoins.com/bronze_disease.html
My technical background is the focus of the ATM consultancy website:
http://www.apptechman.com/
That background is additionally discussed here:
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/David-Welsh/-44187
The most recent [2006] version of my technical resume is available here:
http://www.classicalcoins.com/Resume.html
Readers who play chess might be interested in the best-known game of my brief career as a competitive chess player: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1586750
While this has nothing to do with numismatic blogging qualifications, it gives insight into the diversity of my interests. This game received the Brilliancy Prize at the 1968 U. S. Open and was published in that year's Chess Informant. After I stopped playing competitively, I concentrated on furthering the development of computer chess.
********************UPDATE 7/2/2015********************
The archaeo-blogger referred to in this post apparently still is not convinced that it is important for him to disclose his credentials as an archaeologist, so that the public may make an informed, thoughtful judgement regarding his education, professional experience, political philosophy and motives.
This, despite a great deal of discussion in the comments section of this blog.
Perhaps he believes that there is one set of blogging ethics for "archaeologists," and another for everyone else. What he has posted in his blog recently indicates that he instead prefers to further criticize and attempt to ridicule this observer and other pro-collecting advocates.
One would think that the public which reads his blog would eventually realize that this blogger is continuing to construct an immense edifice of highly controversial opinionating, without providing any publicly visible foundation to substantiate his pretensions to being an archaeologist.
He seems to think that this omission can instead be dealt with by challenging the traditional definition of numismatics as the collecting and study of coins, and the traditional definition of "professional numismatists" as those who make their living, or a significant part thereof, dealing in coins or writing about them.
According to this archaeo-blogger, "numismatics" should instead be regarded as an academic discipline carried on by those who have degrees in that subject, or in archaeology and related disciplines, and contribute by presenting papers at academic or archaeological conferences relating to numismatics. He goes on to say: "The problem is that elsewhere, and in the US particularly (but not exclusively) mere coin collecting is also called "numismatics". Dealer Dave Welsh wants coin selling to also be called "numismatics". I suppose a parallel would be stamp collecting which its practitioners call "philately". But just using a catalogue to put rectangles of paper with colourful pictures of butterflies (or round pieces of metal with blurred pictures of Roman emperors) in order in an album/coin folder or tray is not really any kind of "study" and any "methodology" of this kind of ordering is the most primitive."
I can only observe that a great many real numismatists will regard these remarks as an almost incredible intersection of arrogance and ignorance.
********************Update 7/4/2015******************
David Knell, a supporter of the agenda of the archaeoblogger referred to above, has taken umbrage at my views on qualifications and blogging ethics:
http://ancient-heritage.blogspot.com/2015/07/hollyblog-fantasy-world-of-blogging-in.html
It is very interesting, and somewhat puzzling, to observe that he regards a call for this archaeoblogger to publicly disclose his credentials as an archaeologist, as amounting to a personal attack on his credentials. Now, 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.
My concern was rather that the public, seeing this archaeoblogger's identification of himself as an "archaeologist," may imagine him to be a peer of luminaries such as Lord Renfrew and Roger Bland, and ought to be able to accurately assess for themselves his education, professional experience, political philosophy and motives.
Then Mr. Knell went on to sarcastically characterize my approach toward managing comments to this blog as being "pompous." He ended by saying:
"Ah, and there was innocent 21st-century me, naively thinking a blog was just a blog."
Perhaps Mr. Knell does not notice pomposity or arrogance in this archaeoblogger's blog utterances, however others do, and it is quite clear that this "archaeologist" does not envision his venue as being "just a blog," but instead as a forum for conducting a crusade (some might go so far as to characterize it as a jihad) against antiquities collecting and metal detecting. As such, it has become widely known and in the opinion of many opponents of antiquities collecting, important.
Given the combative tone of the archaeoblogger's comments toward which my comments policy statement was directed, it was important to explain to other commenters why I had allowed those comments to be published.
posted by Dave Welsh at 12:47 PM
19 Comments:
Anyone who bills themselves as an "archaeologist" or an "expert" should make their qualifications available for public scrutiny.
Indeed they should, unless something lurks in their antecedents that's better kept from public scrutiny; a lack of provenance usually suggests a skeleton in the cupboard, and the reticence to share is understandable.
Then again, anyone may describe themselves as being archaeologist and the term 'professional' when used to describe such an archaeologist relates only to the fact they receive payment for what they do; not a level of excellence, or competence.
Indeed, it all comes down to speculation, interpretation, and guesswork. However archaeologists have an advantage in that few will argue with their findings, or, who guards the guards?
Regards
John Howland
Detectorist (archaeologist?) Collector and Treasure Hunter.
1/2: Peter Tompa writes: “ Anyone who bills themselves as an "archaeologist" or an "expert" should make their qualifications available for public scrutiny. “
Can you two appreciate how pompous that sounds? “Anyone”, Mr Tompa, or just the ones that write about coin collecting ?
And „Texan Catlover” (owner of “The Internet’s funniest kittie moments” blog) „should” reveal his/her qualifications to write about moggies, and the owner of „Kitchen tips for busy mums” too? And the authors of the “Help Save Britain’s Bats” and the “Stop Sussex Fracking” blogs and all the other authors of 158 million blogs worldwide? Really, you people are so pathetically ridiculous. What is the root of this numismatic exceptionalism of yours?
Anyway, going on the clear evidence of your past track record (see the contents of both your blogs), it is quite clear that you want only an added source of ammunition to attack another blog’s writer through nit-picking in the same way as you BOTH have done to this moment. I see no reason why anybody should trust either of you or have any interest in justifying themselves to you and your guffawing coin collecting mates.
To refer to what Mr Welsh asserts in this post, in your own case, it is not your CVs which give your readers an idea of who you are, but what you write – which reveals a whole lot about what you know and think and what you do not. It is by that you are judged.
Mr Welsh, you blog here as a „professional numismatist”, yet the „curriculum vitae” you published here (quite besides its other glaring faults as an exemplar of that type of document), fails utterly to establish your credentials in that regard („education, professional experience, political philosophy and motives”). In fact the CV you published as an exemplar does not even mention your coin dealing or ancient coins at all. Neither that first spate (before 1973?) referred to in your commercial site’s “About me-trust me I’m a dealer” page, nor the existence of “Classical Coins” from 2003. Your qualifications („education, professional experience, political philosophy and motives”) for discussing cultural property management policies therefore are not in the slightest established here by the CV you publish. I find it puzzling that you would postulate that it is “necessary” while singularly failing to demonstrate it in your own example.
What education and qualifications do you HAVE in numismatics? Under whom did you study it and where? Do you have any diplomas? What awards has your firm won? What numismatic events have you exhibited at? At which numismatic conferences have you delivered papers? Of which professional numismatic bodies are you a member (or on the board of) – what about the IAPN? What numismatic projects have you been involved in? Numismatic publications (none listed on your CV though “chess” is)? While you give turnover figures you have achieved in (other people’s?) engineering firms, where are the comparable data for Classical coins? Why does it say on your dealer’s website you speak five modern languages, but your CV lists just three and none of the “ancient scripts, Latin and Greek”? You say you have published two “technical” books, but the only ones in your publications are about a board game. You say you have published “numerous” articles, but only three are listed (without full bibliographic details) two of 1983 and the other from 1990. There are inconsistencies, in your CV. You give Feb 2003 as the startup date for ATM. Yet in the zoom-in text to which you refer readers it says 1999 (does that firm still operate? Throughout you give the Goleta address, though I understand you no longer live there). What is the truth?
2/2:
Now really I am not a bit interested in your CV, it’s mostly about “connectors” - plugs and sockets. Perhaps you know a lot about them, but I have zero interest in discussing them with you, or buying a design for one (or is it just the packets?) from ATM, so publishing this CV on an “Ancient Coins” blog is utterly pointless.
Neither is your CV a place where I would go to find out what you think about no-questions-asked and ‘oops-I’ve-lost-the-papers’ dealing of artefacts. If I want to see what kind of a dealer you are, I look at what you offer, and what information you publish in your sales offers demonstrating you’ve done any due diligence at all to identify where, when and how those coins surfaced on the market and what it is about that information which makes each of the ones you have in your stockroom demonstrably licit. I see very little. I see no mention on your website of the Code of ethics to which you as a professional numismatist adhere – or indeed the word mentioned at all. That is all I need to know about you. No CV full of plugs and sockets.
Your blog sets out your position on the antiquities market, and refusal to address the issues on the same plane as those you attempt to polemise with, and that is enough for me to know who you are, where you are coming from and what to expect from you. In fact, from what you blog, what we’ve come to expect from both you and Mr Tompa is nothing of any substance, but constant sniping and attempts to drag discussions on wider issues down to the personal level. The above post is a prime example of this genre.
Mr Tompa, I think you’d have to look long and hard to find a single place on my blog where I describe myself as an “expert” in anything (I don’t know if you even noticed, but I describe portable antiquities as “a primary interest”). This is another of those straw man arguments which you use because you have no other.
Mr Welsh, on your CV you boast (and it comes over very badly) that you have “solved numerous problems in days that had baffled others using standard approaches”. Yet the problems that beset the market in antiquities are due precisely to those “standard approaches” which elsewhere you staunchly defend. It is a shame that you seem unable to apply your lateral thinking abilities to more than plugs and sockets, and cannot apply it to the problems of the issues raised by the current model of “professional numismatics”.
"antecedents" Mr Howland? Is that really the word you wished to use? I think your snide comments reveal exactly the reason why Mr Tompa is going to have to carry on guessing about who or what he is up against.
Thinking over what Peter Tompa and John Howland said, perhaps the most telling way to state this concept is that anyone who claims to have professional qualifications has a consequent obligation - whether that be legal or moral - to present those qualifications to the public.
Whenever one visits any professional practitioner, be that a lawyer, professional engineer, dentist, or accountant, one expects to find diplomas and other credentials posted where the public can see them. That also applies to auto mechanics, cosmetologists and other specialists.
Does anyone have a right to claim to be an archaeologist, if unwilling to disclose the credentials upon which that claim is based?
Comments Policy Exception
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 an important subject, and Mr. Barford must be given every opportunity to defend his position, even if his remarks transgress blog policy.
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. He must realize that commenters are guests, and have an obligation to "follow the rules" of the venue. Mr. Barford does not determine the rules here, nor does anyone else who comments to my blog.
I will however observe that Mr. Barford's confrontational approach in his comments mirrors that which he habitually employs in his notorious blog. It is this approach which has made him unwelcome in every public Internet discussion group (on the subject of collecting) in which he has participated.
What these comments disclose is that Mr. Barford does not seem to believe that making a reasoned and factual statement of the matter as he perceives it, is an appropriate way to address remarks which he does not like. Instead he attacks the author of such remarks in the manner of a prosecuting attorney badgering a hostile witness.
The comments section of this blog is not a courtroom, nor is it a venue for carrying on a formal "debate" of the sort whose scoring is described here: http://www.apdaweb.org/old/guide/judging.html . It is instead a place for reasoned discussion whose goal should be to illuminate a subject and help to develop an informed perspective.
Mr. Barford stated:
"To refer to what Mr Welsh asserts in this post, in your own case, it is not your CVs which give your readers an idea of who you are, but what you write – which reveals a whole lot about what you know and think and what you do not. It is by that you are judged."
I disagree. Mr. Barford claims to be an archaeologist. I am sure that if someone else claims to be an archaeologist, Mr. Barford (and other archaeologists) would want to know the factual basis supporting that claim. If that is not so, why do colleges and universities issue diplomas? Why are dissertations and theses kept in their libraries for researchers to consult?
The general public which visits blogs is not well able to judge professional qualifications from what is written there.
If Mr. Barford really does believes what he stated above, why does he not describe himself as one who has an interest in archaeology, and in writing about it, and in the intersections between archaeology, antiquities collecting and metal detecting?
Instead he describes himself as an archaeologist. That suggests to an uninformed reader that he is a professional colleague of such luminaries as Colin Renfrew and Roger Bland.
Mr. Barford further stated:
"Mr Welsh, you blog here as a „professional numismatist”, yet the „curriculum vitae” you published here (quite besides its other glaring faults as an exemplar of that type of document), fails utterly to establish your credentials in that regard („education, professional experience, political philosophy and motives”)."
This comment is seriously in error.
The document he discusses is not a "curriculum vitae." It is a resume, and was written to be read by prospective employers (and consulting clients) who need to know my qualifications as an engineer and technical executive.
In my blog post I said:
"The most recent [2006] version of my technical resume is available here:
http://www.classicalcoins.com/Resume.html "
That resume is of potential interest to the general public because it states my education, experience, capabilities and publications in the field of Engineering.
I have not prepared a formal CV describing my numismatic qualifications because those are apparent in these citations:
"My numismatic background and interests are outlined here:
http://www.classicalcoins.com/About.html
My focus upon education as a primary objective of my numismatic website begins here:
http://www.classicalcoins.com/page51.html
My focus on numismatic research and information-sharing is apparent in these pages:
http://www.classicalcoins.com/blackmuseum.html
http://www.classicalcoins.com/research.html
http://www.classicalcoins.com/bronze_disease.html "
Mr. Barford does not, in my opinion, have the knowledge and experience required to judge anyone's qualifications as a "professional numismatist." He appears to believe that a professional numismatist must have a degree in that field (or archaeology) and have published papers in that field. That is instead a standard to be applied to an academician, one who would be qualified to teach numismatics in a university.
A professional numismatist is one who is qualified by knowledge and experience to earn his living in the field of numismatics, either by dealing in coins or by writing about them.
A good example is David Sear: www.davidrsear.com/
In my opinion, David Sear is perhaps the most distinguished professional numismatist alive today. He has written extensively upon the subject, and has also had unparalleled experience as a dealer in, and cataloguer of, ancient coins. His opinion on authenticity is regarded as authoritative.
David Sear never attended a college or university. He went directly from secondary school to the Ancients department at B. A. Seaby, then one of the most important British numismatic firms, as a numismatic assistant.
Mr. Barford then characteristically goes on to ask a great many badgering questions which I will answer here.
"What education and qualifications do you HAVE in numismatics?"
A classical secondary education, the remainder of my numismatic education being gained by practice in much the same manner as David Sear gained his. My numismatic qualifications are not the sort of formal credentials academicians have, which seem to be the only qualifications Mr. Barford is capable of understanding.
"Under whom did you study it and where?"
I began collecting ancient and U.S. coins while a student, and became a "numismatic assistant" at Willoughby's in Los Angeles in 1963. I later operated a mail-order business in ancient coins but could not make a living at that because I did not have sufficient capital, so I then turned to Engineering. In 1994, I came to realize that I still had a passion for numismatics, and now had the capital to pursue it. See http://www.classicalcoins.com/About.html.
"Do you have any diplomas?"
Yes, in the field of Engineering.
"What awards has your firm won?"
Two are shown at the bottom of the home page. The awards I really treasure are the many letters and emails I have received from collectors impressed by the Classical Coins website and the array of informative resources it contains.
"What numismatic events have you exhibited at?"
I don't have bourse table displays at numismatic conventions. I attend them to visit with other dealers and participate in auctions. My website is my exhibition.
"At which numismatic conferences have you delivered papers?"
None. Numismatic conventions normally do not include presentation of formal papers. I have participated in discussion forums relating to ACCG interests. This question, I will add, reveals much regarding Mr. Barford's ignorance of numismatics.
"Of which professional numismatic bodies are you a member (or on the board of) ..."
I am a member of the ANA, and also of the ACCG.
"What numismatic projects have you been involved in?"
See http://www.classicalcoins.com/flans1.html and http://www.classicalcoins.com/bronze_disease.html.
This field does not include formal projects such as archaaeological excavations. There is, instead, a great deal of independent study and informal information-sharing. The above are two instances where the results became so interesting that I published them on my website.
"Why does it say on your dealer’s website you speak five modern languages, but your CV lists just three and none of the “ancient scripts, Latin and Greek”?"
My resume (it is not a CV) lists capabilities that would be of interest to potential employers and consulting clients.
"You say you have published two “technical” books, but the only ones in your publications are about a board game."
Those books are about computer chess, a subject in the field of artificial intelligence, an important subdiscipline of computer science. Computer Chess II became a university textbook used for teaching that subdiscipline and thirty years later, is still regarded as an important resource for chess programmers.
"You say you have published “numerous” articles, but only three are listed (without full bibliographic details) two of 1983 and the other from 1990."
I included only the most significant publications which would interest potential employers and consulting clients. Full bibliographic details are not given in such resumes.
"You give Feb 2003 as the startup date for ATM. Yet in the zoom-in text to which you refer readers it says 1999 (does that firm still operate?"
1999 was the date for establishing Interconnection Technology Management, a consultancy I closed to accept employment with Calient networks, then restarted as Applied Technology Management when Calient was forced into hibernation mode by the dot-com crash. I have not updated the ATM website yet after the move, being fully occupied at the moment with Classical Coins.
Mr. Barford (2/2) then characteristically goes on to make confrontational remarks and ask more badgering questions which I will comment on or answer here.
"Now really I am not a bit interested in your CV, it’s mostly about “connectors” - plugs and sockets. Perhaps you know a lot about them ..."
I believe that I have forgotten more about the field of electrical and optical connectors and related technology than you will ever learn about archaeology.
"... but I have zero interest in discussing them with you ..."
I did not provide this information for the purpose of discussing it with you, but instead for my blog public.
[Barford's further comments about his blog hobbyhorses not being addressed in my resume are omitted as irrelevant]
"Mr Welsh, on your CV you boast (and it comes over very badly) that you have “solved numerous problems in days that had baffled others using standard approaches”."
My resume is addressed to potential employers and consulting clients, not to Mr. Barford or other archaeologists. Those to whom it is addressed are intensely interested in problem-solving capabilities and a track record of applied ingenuity. Possibly such qualities are not so important in archaeology.
Regarding this comment:
'"At which numismatic conferences have you delivered papers?"
None. Numismatic conventions normally do not include presentation of formal papers. I have participated in discussion forums relating to ACCG interests. This question, I will add, reveals much regarding Mr. Barford's ignorance of numismatics.'
Mr. Barford subsequently made a post in his blog regarding an academic conference in Poland on the subject of coinage: http://www.starozytnosci.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/moneta1.png
He stated:
"I rather feel it shows more that the self-styled "professional numismatist" from the US has never been to a proper conference at which real professional numismatists present the results of their research. We have them pretty frequently here in the Academy of Sciences in Warsaw, and in Cracow, Poznan, Wrocław etc etc..."
Mr. Barford confuses "academically qualified" with "professional." How many of those who attend or present papers at this conference derive their livings primarily from their involvement in numismatics? Are not most or all of these academics employed by institutions or governments, or students?
When I referred to "numismatic conventions" I had in mind events such as this:
http://www.longbeachexpo.com/ and http://www.nyinc.info/index.php
These are conventions, not academic conferences. Numismatists (collectors and "professional numismatists" such as myself) attend such conventions primarily to transact business, not to participate in academic discussions and present papers. There are sometimes worthwhile discussion group sessions on specialized topics in collecting, however these are informal, oriented toward the interests of collectors, and are not academic venues.
There are very few academically oriented numismatic conferences held in the USA. Notable exceptions include those convened by the American Numismatic Society: http://ansmagazine.com/Spring04/COAC .
It would of course be very desirable to have more such conferences. Unfortunately archaeological authorities in the US are not inclined to recognize numismatics as an appropriate subject for archaeologists to take an interest in, except for the purpose of disparaging the numismatic trade and coin collecting. The archaeological climate in Europe is much more enlightened.
For Barford:
When it comes to making "snide comments" I remain in your shadow, though I'm working harder to reach your level of expertise as typified in your ramblings above.
You really ought to get the hang of using the " " marks. I understand evening classes in English are readily available in Warsaw.
I am attempting to shed light on the context of the topic being discussed. It seems to me that fairness would be better satisfied if you applied a single standard. You seem to apply different critera in assessing „archaeology/ archaeologists” from those used to define „numismatics/ numismatists”. You insist one needs to publish a CV or resume to establish „credentials”, to be accepted by you as one the other merely needs to sell coins online. You say I am unsuited to stand judge over who is a numismatist, but claim the right to be allowed to judge who is an archaeologist. It seems to me there is a disjunct in the logic. Unlike your dentist/lawyer/ car mechanic analogy, an archaeoblog is not selling a commercial service, but when I am engaged professionally, it is by people who have my credentials.
It is indeed a “reasoned and factual statement of the matter as I perceive it” to point out that while you DEMAND of me a CV, but when you present your “own qualifications as a numismatist and numismatic blogger”, you do not do so in a manner like that you demand of others. You present the contents of your website as “evidence” that you are thereby “qualified” to write on the web as a “numismatist”. That is rather a circular argument, don’t you think, when what you are questioning is whether somebody else can write on the web as an archaeologist?
I think one definition of “a professional archaeologist” (rather than a circuit digger, which is a technical appointment) would be one who has a degree in that field and have published papers in that field. It seems to be the definition you require me to fit by DEMANDING to see a CV with my education and professional experience outlined (i.e., publications, conference papers etc). In that case it is not at all unreasonable for onlookers to expect that the same kind of definition would apply to your own discipline.
You have not helped me understand the confusion reflected in my first question, are the only users of social media who you think should be required to submit for approval their CVs or resumes only conservation bloggers who touch on coins amongst the other issues? Whence this numismatistic exceptionalism?
Mr. Barford's latest comment conforms to this blog's policies, and is applauded for that.
"You seem to apply different critera in assessing „archaeology/ archaeologists” from those used to define „numismatics/ numismatists”."
I do not think that anyone needs to make a disclosure of qualifications that is more complete or more formal than my own.
"You say I am unsuited to stand judge over who is a numismatist, but claim the right to be allowed to judge who is an archaeologist."
No, I do not, and did not intend to appear as making any such claim. I asserted that it is important for the public to be able to judge your credentials as an archaeologist, in forming their opinions as to how much weight to give to your blog utterances.
"Unlike your dentist/lawyer/ car mechanic analogy, an archaeoblog is not selling a commercial service, but when I am engaged professionally, it is by people who have my credentials."
The above statement is true, as far as it goes. However, you are presenting your opinions as being those of an "archaeologist." This implies that your credentials as an "archaeologist" meet standards the public would expect from an archaeologist, and to argue that you have no obligation to disclose your credentials impresses me as being disingenuous.
"I think one definition of “a professional archaeologist” (rather than a circuit digger, which is a technical appointment) would be one who has a degree in that field and have published papers in that field."
I tend to disagree. I instead believe that the public image of an archaeologist is one who goes out into the field and is involved in excavations and discoveries.
"You have not helped me understand the confusion reflected in my first question, are the only users of social media who you think should be required to submit for approval their CVs or resumes only conservation bloggers who touch on coins amongst the other issues? Whence this numismatistic exceptionalism?"
I believe I have reasonably and adequately addressed that here, however if further discussion seems appropriate I have no objection to that.
Mr Welsh, in your response to David Knell's questioning of your recent actions ('Blogwarts: the fantasy world of blogging in California') you pretend surprise: "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.
Why do you attempt to shift blame onto others? You have yourself made a series of allegations on this "Ancient Coins" blog. For example:
"Warsaw document translator and sometime archaeologist Barford (with a rather brief UK fieldwork career [sic] and one book [sic] to his credit)" September 19, 2013
"In this Slavic Fascist[sic] 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". August 28, 2013
Please provide the basis for your false and unsupported claim that I did not finish my first degree, published by you above. You have information (on Unidroit-L) on what I have done, but despite that simply make things up and demand more ammunition for your happy slapping games.
You started this, do not try to shift the blame onto John Howland (who no doubt was sincerely trying to contribute here your "light instead of heat" despite appearances).
I am also unclear why you pronounce me a "Slavic Fascist", or how I can be both a "document translator" by occupation as well as an "occasional translator". But then, I am at a loss what relevance any of this has to the topic of "ancient coins" or indeed anything. It is none of your business how much I earn doing translations.
This kind of remark make very clear what use you and those like you would make of any personal information you could get about the people you oppose. Instead of discussing like normal people the issues about which I and others write, you merely behave like trollbots, trying to obfuscate discussion and deflect it away from the important issues by dragging everything down to a nasty personal level. I hope this sheds some "light" on why after years of this you are treated by those you continually attack with such a lack of trust and respect.
Mr. Barford:
It is true that I did not imagine that your credentials could not stand the light of day. I have no doubt that you have degrees in archaeology (a M.A. if I recall correctly), however when I stated that you had failed to matriculate from the Institute of Archaeology in London, I meant that you did not receive the Ph.D. you had expected to be awarded by this institution.
In that respect I had in mind the European educational system wherein students obtain their "bac" on graduating from secondary school and attend university to get a graduate degree. If that is not the case in Britain then I am in error.
As to which institution(s) awarded you your degrees, that has not been disclosed. Perhaps it was not a British institution? I really don't know the outcome of your undergraduate work at the Institute of Archaeology in London, i.e. whether you received a diploma.
I don't recall the information that you say I have on Unidroit-L disclosing details about this. Can you refer me to its location?
So far as what is or is not my business, you have yourself intruded in a most unwelcome manner into many areas in the realm of collecting, metal detecting and the numismatic trade that are none of your business according to the perspective of those assailed in your blog utterances. One glaring example of this is your attempt to portray the confidentiality maintained by dealers regarding their sources as reprehensible. It is in fact required by the longstanding and traditional ethics of the trade.
Regarding your occupation, you are known to be a document translator and beyond that you appear to spend nearly all of your time posting to your blog and gathering material for it. It is not apparent that you receive any compensation for carrying on your blog, so it is only reasonable to regard you as being a document translator by occupation.
The relevance in this is that your occupation is not archaeology, so far as anyone can determine from the public record. For you to describe yourself as an archaeologist in your blog is therefore misleading.
I don't describe myself as an engineer in my blog, but as a coin dealer, since that is my primary focus, and what most of my working hours have been spent on since I opened Classical Coins in 2003. It is true that my income from my Engineering consultancy was much larger than that from Classical Coins for a number of years, however that is no longer the case and I believe that the true measure of one's occupation is what consumes most of one's working hours.
The issue of your claim to be an archaeologist is not "getting down to a nasty personal level." I believe that I have every right to point out that your actual qualifications in that field have never been publicly disclosed. I also believe that I have sound reasons for believing that you are not now an archaeologist by occupation, and have not been so for many years. If you don't like that, the most sensible way to stop this is to disclose the truth. I really don't imagine that it is anything to be ashamed of.
Mr Welsh, how can you possibly imagine you are in a position to "make an informed, thoughtful judgement regarding [my] education" if you have not the foggiest idea about how the education system works in my country? Look up the word "matriculate". I am a graduate of the London Institute, but since I then left to work full-time on a project outside London which interested me, I was not enrolled on any PhD course at the Institute, which is why I received no doctorate there. None was "expected". I hope that is sufficient light on that non-mystery.
More light: in my 2015 tax returns I assure you there is and will be money received for my archaeological work as well as other sources. There are two archaeological publications coming out in the near future, one by me, the second with my participation as a consultant. Neither will be published online. I am a busy man with, I am told, excellent time management skills. I do not need your, or anybody else's approval to use my talents in the way I see fit and find satisfying.
Now please enlighten us: what, actually, IS your problem? Why not just write on an ancient coins blog about ancient coins and not some ridicule-attracting puerile Barford-this, Barford-that, Barford-Prince-of-liars, Barford-flatulist and all the other nonsense stuff this professional numismatist fills his blog with. Whence this apparent Barford-obsession of yours? How many numismatists have had their name and character, past, political orientation, source of income, stolen photo and place of residence discussed with the same frequency as you do mine? David Sears for example. Why is there more Paul Barford than David Sears on an "ancient coins" blog? Do you feel the contents of this blog with its high content of hate posts about a non-numismatic individual, really "enhances" your professional status as a professional numismatist? I personally think it does you zero credit, and suspect (I am not entirely alone in that).
I am a guy who, among other things, blogs about portable antiquities and heritage issues, one of several. I do not need your approval, acceptation or love. If you and your readers do not like what you read there, or do not find there exactly what you need to be satisfied, and cannot bring yourself to address the issues raised, then just go and read something else. There are 158 million blogs out there, I am told, find one you do enjoy reading and stop moaning about the one you do not like.
Comments to this post are now closed.
Post a Comment
<< Home