Friday, July 29, 2016

Archaeologists Unethically Pursue Their Anticollecting Vendetta


In a comment to this post in his highly regarded blog, 
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2016/07/mass-destruction-or-mass-deception.html ,

Peter Tompa said:

"Archaeologists pleading the case of countries like Bulgaria may claim recent finds from there are "illicit," but what does that really mean in practice if Bulgarian authorities still allow small items like coins to be sold openly in markets throughout the country."

 In that comment, he raised a key issue which, to my mind, is central to the entire discussion of looting and smuggling of looted objects. Bulgarian authorities seem to have a different understanding of what is "lawful" than we do, and their actions indicate that this understanding is not well aligned with the doctrinal mantra chanted by anticollecting archaeologists. Practical considerations, and common sense, seem to influence their decisions. Perhaps their decisions are based upon their view of what is best for Bulgaria and Bulgarians, rather than archaeological doctrine.

Please note that I do NOT subscribe to using the term "illicit" in this discussion.

Referring to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illicit , the primary definition of "illicit" is 'not allowed by law : unlawful or illegal.' A secondary definition is 'involving activities that are not considered morally acceptable.'

The manner in which archaeologists use the word "illicit" trades upon that secondary definition in a manner which in my opinion amounts to doublespeak: "language that can be understood in more than one way and that is used to trick or deceive people."

The manner in which archaeologists use the word "illicit" and many other similarly deceptive words in their writings is definitely, and intentionally, "doublespeak." I do not believe that those who seek to defend collectors' rights should ever accept, or contribute to, the propagation of such "doublespeak," but instead should point out that in using such deceptive terminology in an attempt to prejudge the discussion of looted and smuggled artifacts through slyly framing it in "loaded language," and by deliberately and intentionally engaging in "doublespeak" to pursue their vendetta against collectors, archaeologists who use such terminology violate OUR standards of ethics, which I believe are also those which prevail among the general population.

Collectors of antiquities and ancient coins, and we who seek to defend their interests, should seek appropriate ways of highlighting that ethics violation, and of pointing out that archaeologists, who so loudly and frequently complain about the "unethical" behavior of those who collect and trade in antiquities including ancient coins, are in a broader sense (as the general public understands ethics) presenting their irrational case against collecting in an unethical and deliberately deceptive manner.


Anyone who desires to find clear examples of this ethics violation, of slyly using "loaded languageto deceptively and misleadingly pursue the vendetta against collectors, can find an inexhaustible supply of egregious examples here:

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/

It's a rather dangerous place to go, where deception, doublespeak, fantasy and misrepresentation reign supreme -- judged by a perspective founded upon intellectual integrity and respect for the truth. The author of that blog, to begin with, is not an archaeologist and despite his pretensions, never really was an archaeologist, in the sense of going out in the field and carrying out surveys, excavations and other work central to the practice of archaeology. 

He is in reality a language teacher with an interest in archaeology, who has in the past written one book, one monograph published by an archaeological society, and a number of journal articles on the subject. His qualification as a writer on the subject is a M.A. in archaeology, which he studied at University College London, a highly respected institution. But he did not defend his M.A. thesis, nor did he continue his studies to receive the doctorate regarded as an essential qualification for a practicing professional archaeologist.

He has never published a curriculum vitae or resumé of actual qualifications to be considered an expert commentator on archaeology, antiquities collecting and metal detecting, which are principal subjects of his blog.

8 Comments:

Blogger Paul Barford said...

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't you? How low can coin dealers sink?

[Paul Barford] >> never really was an archaeologist<<
really? That is bollocks, you do not know what you are talking about. You owe me an apology.

>>in the sense of going out in the field and carrying out surveys, excavations and other work central to the practice of archaeology. <<
really ? Bollocks, you do not know what you are talking about. I am out there next week. You owe me an apology.

>> He is in reality a language teacher with an interest in archaeology<<
really? Bollocks, you do not know what you are talking about. What do you teach?


>>who has in the past written one book, one monograph [..] and a number of journal articles on the subject<<
far more than you on either numismatics or engineering, I would warrant. You do not know what you are talking about. You owe me an apology.

>>he did not defend his M.A. thesis<<
really? Bollocks, you do not know what you are talking about. But you should, as you raised this issue on Unidroit-L and got a proper answer to your acdcusation - what's the point of answering you if you twist and forget the replies? You owe me an apology.

>>the doctorate regarded as an essential qualification for a practicing professional archaeologist.<<
Really? (you got one in engineering or numismatics?) Bollocks, you do not know what you are talking about. Has Mr Sayles, Hooker or Tompa got a doctoral degree?

>>He has never published a curriculum vitae or resumé of actual qualifications<<
But those who've employed me as such have seen one. Are they idiots? Because I have not "published it" (is there any obligation to? The Queen has not either) you do not know what you are talking about. Why do you insist on bringing things down to a personal level? Judge what I say from what I say not "who I am".

>>deception, doublespeak, fantasy and misrepresentation reign supreme<<
Show us where, or face the accusation that here too you have not the faintest idea what you are talking about. Yours are just empty words.

>> Bulgarian authorities seem to have a different understanding of what is "lawful" than we do <<
but that is what the 1970 UNESCO Convention is about. Do you trade in antiquities from Bulgaria (or any other foreign country)? What criterion for "licit" do you use then, theirs, or your "own"?

Is what "we" (USA) think is "lawful" of any interest to the outside world? You are not the centre of the world.

[Peter Tompa's] >>highly regarded blog,<<
so "highly regarded" that it has one sixth of the number of hits as mine in the same period? (and why does your blog not have a counter? I dare you to start one). No, my blog and Trafficking Culture are where people come now for information about portable antiquities issues, not Bailey and Ehrenberg's pathetic effort which contains merely sniping and wonky-minded conspiracy theories. Mr Tompa, Mr Sayles, yourself and the ACCG are has-beens, fighting their losing battles by sniping, provocation and personal attacks - like the above post.

As for that "key issue", see what I wrote about it on my blog today.

1:06 PM  
Blogger Dick Stout said...

Paul Barford looks for, thrives on, and relishes any mention of he and his blog. Ignore his taunts (and that is all they are). He is not worth the effort.

3:23 PM  
Blogger John H said...

Hello Dave:

Well put.

He's undistinguished as an archaeologist and judging from his blog that showcases his command of English, he doesn't appear to have much going for him in the teaching stakes either.

His only path to 'fame' as he undoubtedly sees it, is to belittle experts who have the peer-respect that eludes him. I seriously doubt he'll ever change his narcissistic ways and like death and taxes he'll always be with us and bleating from the sidelines.

He now claims on a blog entry dated 25 July (on what evidence is unclear) that:

"There is actually a great silence from the British archaeological community (apparently for the most part, limp-wristed, pandering jobsworths who could not give a tinkers about any of this). It is good that there are archaeologists elsewhere keeping their eye on the ball."

The term 'limp-wristed' in the UK at least, is an offensive, demeaning, and abusive description (no surprises here then) meaning someone, usually a man, is homosexual, or effete, or in the modern idiom, 'gay.'

Influential he ain't! Homo-phobic he is!

Best

John Howland
UK Treasure Hunter

5:02 PM  
Blogger Dave Welsh said...

Mr. Barford has just very clearly displayed, in his above comments, the reason why Dr. Peter Tompa [Washington College of Law, American University (J.D. cum laude, 1986)] does not desire references to Mr. Barford in comments to his blog.

It isn't possible to publish comments by Mr. Barford without allowing the sort of egregious nastiness that seems to pervade his every utterance to pollute the comments section of one's own blog.

This blog values (very highly) the principle of freedom of speech, which I have in the past defended by publicly objecting to the expulsion of Mr. Barford from the Moneta-L and Ancient Artifacts discussion groups. After thinking the matter over, I decided that to be consistent with these stands, I should allow Barford's above comments to appear here. I don't intend to extend this courtesy more than once in comments to any post, if (considering the tone of his remarks) I choose to publish anything he submits as comments. He has now had his say with respect to this post.

If Mr. Barford, in the future, desires a different standard of access, he should moderate the tone of his remarks so that they will be suitable for publication in respectable venues.

I will address the statements in his above comments in successive comments which follow.

3:29 AM  
Blogger Dave Welsh said...

Mr. Barford uttered the following in his comments:
>>Paul Barford] never really was an archaeologist
>really? That is bollocks, you do not know what you are talking about. You owe me an apology.

>>in the sense of going out in the field and carrying out surveys, excavations and other work central to the practice of archaeology.
really ? Bollocks, you do not know what you are talking about. I am out there next week. You owe me an apology.

>> He is in reality a language teacher with an interest in archaeology
really? Bollocks, you do not know what you are talking about. What do you teach?


>>who has in the past written one book, one monograph [..] and a number of journal articles on the subject
far more than you on either numismatics or engineering, I would warrant. You do not know what you are talking about. You owe me an apology.

>>he did not defend his M.A. thesis
really? Bollocks, you do not know what you are talking about. But you should, as you raised this issue on Unidroit-L and got a proper answer to your acdcusation - what's the point of answering you if you twist and forget the replies? You owe me an apology.

To set the record straight; I do not owe Mr. Barford an apology for presenting in my blog what I sincerely believe to be the truth regarding his murky and not very creditable "career" in the field of archaeology.

If Mr. Barford does not like what I have said, he is free to follow the normal practice of reputable commentators, such as Peter Tompa and Wayne Sayles, by publishing a curriculum vitae disclosing facts substantiating his pretensions to be an archaeologist, including details of his education such as the defense of his M.A. thesis, and specifics of his experience in going out in the field and carrying out surveys, excavations and other work central to the practice of archaeology.

>>nor did he continue his studies to receive the doctorate regarded as an essential qualification for a practicing professional archaeologist.
Really? (you got one in engineering or numismatics?) Bollocks, you do not know what you are talking about. Has Mr Sayles, Hooker or Tompa got a doctoral degree?
I do know what I am talking about, and I have every right to make such assertions so long as Mr. Barford refuses to publish a curriculum vitae. Dr. Tompa has a doctoral degree. John Hooker can speak for himself - I won't presume to do that for him. I have a M.Sc. degree in Engineering.

Wayne Sayles has an M.A. in Art History from the University of Wisconsin, about which he has remarked: "There really aren’t a lot of places to study numismatics, so I was very fortunate to find an Art History professor at the UW who happened to love ancient coins. My MA program was tailored specifically to my numismatic interests and was a unique blend of art, numismatics and connoisseurship."

Wayne Sayles is also a noted and very successful author, whose publications in the field of numismaticsare listed by Academia [ https://wisc.academia.edu/WayneSayles/Followers ] as including 11 books and 11 papers.

4:01 AM  
Blogger Dick Stout said...

Mr. Barford said....

"You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't you? How low can coin dealers sink?"

"Why do you insist on bringing things down to a personal level?"

"You are not the centre of the world."

"Mr Tompa, Mr Sayles, yourself and the ACCG are has-beens, fighting their losing battles by sniping, provocation and personal attacks - like the above post. "


Me: ROFLMAO!!!


Mr. Barford said...

"so "highly regarded" that it has one sixth of the number of hits as mine in the same period? (and why does your blog not have a counter? I dare you to start one). No, my blog and Trafficking Culture"are where people come now for information about portable antiquities issues, not Bailey and Ehrenberg's pathetic effort which contains merely sniping and wonky-"

No Mr. Barford, people visit your blog to to laugh and to see what kind of misinformation/propaganda you are currently posting, and the comments section pretty much reflects the interest in anything you have to say.

5:56 AM  
Blogger John H said...

Hi Dave:

Looks like he's completely lost the plot.

The word 'bollocks' by the way, is a UK slang term not in polite use for testicles; usually used in reply to a question that person can't, or, won't answer. I see Barford is very familiar with the word and I hope he's not including the use of this word in his language courses for Polish students.

Native English person to Polish student;

"Do you have the time please?"

Polish student to Native English person;
"Er...um...bollocks."


Barford's coyness concerning his cv is enlightening: "But those who've employed me as such have seen one. Are they idiots?"

No they were not idiots. They were wretched communists who's secret police beat up and murdered Catholic priests among others. I guess he was too busy pocketing 'Red' money to give a tinker's cuss about the plight of the Poles themselves.

"How low can coin dealers sink?" He asks. Nowhere close to his wretched depths I suggest.


Best wishes

John Howland
UK Treasure Hunter

7:15 AM  
Blogger Dave Welsh said...

John,

You observed: "The word 'bollocks' by the way, is a UK slang term not in polite use for testicles; usually used in reply to a question that person can't, or, won't answer. I see Barford is very familiar with the word and I hope he's not including the use of this word in his language courses for Polish students."

Perhaps Mr. Barford uses that word so freely in an attempt to persuade himself that he actually has them himself.

Nothing in his public demeanor and public conduct suggests to me that he really does, in the sense that "having them" is evidence of manliness, courage and an admirable personality that others relate positively to.

Mr. Barford's public demeanor and public conduct instead positively reek with sly, deceptive, unethical, intentionally offensive and provocative behavior, and a notable proclivity for scurrilously attacking others who are very much his betters in every sense of that word. He does this hiding behind a veil of secrecy regarding his personal information. He does this under the illusion that if his personal information is kept secret he is immune from any sort of retaliation for his offensive and provocative public demeanor and public conduct.

Such behavior is the polar opposite of courage. There is however a word which describes it rather well:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catty
"Catty: resembling a cat; especially - slyly spiteful - malicious.

Mr. Baford has publicly described himself as being a "cat fancier," and I think that perhaps explains his cattiness.

3:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home