'Illicit:" A Term Extensible Beyond Artifacts?
In two posts preceding this, I have focused upon usage of the word "illicit" in a context restricted to its employment to describe "cultural objects" or "ancient artifacts" of unclear origins.
Cutting through all the complicated "nuances" of application of this term, it does seem to mean, in a very general sense, "having unclear, and reasonably suspect origins" if not provably illegal origins.
Hmm. This is a term, a word, that has genuine power. It can render an artifact uncollectible amongst the collecting fraternity, and their suppliers. It distills the essence of perceived lack of documented credible, trustworthy origins, and consequent suspicion of illegal or untrustworthy origins, in a short and economical term. Perhaps such a powerful term might be useful in discussing the origins of something other than cultural artifacts?
When we discuss the licitness of artifacts, are we not in a fundamental sense discussing their credibility to be considered trustworthy, qualified artifacts that can ethically be collected?
Credibility is a concept, a quality, that clearly extends far beyond the limited realm of inanimate artifacts. It has, for instance, traditionally been used in describing the trustworthiness of individuals. The same can be said for the word qualified. And much the same may be said for the word ethical.
An individual who is credible, qualified and ethical , as well as being knowledgeable, would be a trustworthy advisor regarding matters in which we fallible humans are not omniscient. One could appropriately use the word licit to describe the pretensions of such an individual to be an expert advisor, or commentator, upon a specialized subject in which the average citizen lacks detailed knowledge.
Conversely, an individual who is not demonstrably credible, qualified and ethical , as well as knowledgeable, would fall short of being a trustworthy advisor regarding matters in which we fallible humans are not omniscient. Such an individual could be described as a false or untrustworthy advisor or commentator.
Would it not be economical to use the word illicit to describe such an individual as a false advisor or commentator?
Would the term illicit not be particularly well suited for describing the pretensions of an individual lacking credible qualifications, yet pretending to be an expert commentator, to be qualified?
Would the term illicit not be particularly well suited for describing the pretensions of an individual who hides his past in a veil of secrecy, contrary to the practice of reputable advisors and commentators, to be trustworthy?
It seems to this observer that there are advisors and commentators who are credible and trustworthy, who publicly disclose their background and credentials, whose pretensions to expertise and knowledge of the subject upon which they comment or advise are well founded, whose qualities as advisors and commentators may justly be described as licit.
Conversely, there are advisors and commentators who are not credible and trustworthy, who do not
publicly disclose their background and credentials, whose pretensions to expertise and knowledge of the subject upon which they comment or advise are not well founded, whose qualities as advisors and commentators may justly be described as illicit.
It's obviously wise to seek out licit advisors and commentators when one desires guidance. In the subject of cultural property law, Dr. Peter Tompa is an extremely competent and well qualified resource.
One could however go badly astray in this observer's opinion, if one were to go looking for guidance in Warsaw. One might find an individual eagerly seeking to be accepted as an expert commentator and advisor whom the general public should trust regarding advice and commentary as to the licitness of portable antiquities. This individual however has not publicly disclosed credible, trustworthy credentials to sustain his pretensions for being publicly accepted as an archaeologist. This individual, according to the above reasoning, is an illicit pretender.
For details, see http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2010/12/unprovenanced-archaeologist.html
Cutting through all the complicated "nuances" of application of this term, it does seem to mean, in a very general sense, "having unclear, and reasonably suspect origins" if not provably illegal origins.
Hmm. This is a term, a word, that has genuine power. It can render an artifact uncollectible amongst the collecting fraternity, and their suppliers. It distills the essence of perceived lack of documented credible, trustworthy origins, and consequent suspicion of illegal or untrustworthy origins, in a short and economical term. Perhaps such a powerful term might be useful in discussing the origins of something other than cultural artifacts?
When we discuss the licitness of artifacts, are we not in a fundamental sense discussing their credibility to be considered trustworthy, qualified artifacts that can ethically be collected?
Credibility is a concept, a quality, that clearly extends far beyond the limited realm of inanimate artifacts. It has, for instance, traditionally been used in describing the trustworthiness of individuals. The same can be said for the word qualified. And much the same may be said for the word ethical.
An individual who is credible, qualified and ethical , as well as being knowledgeable, would be a trustworthy advisor regarding matters in which we fallible humans are not omniscient. One could appropriately use the word licit to describe the pretensions of such an individual to be an expert advisor, or commentator, upon a specialized subject in which the average citizen lacks detailed knowledge.
Conversely, an individual who is not demonstrably credible, qualified and ethical , as well as knowledgeable, would fall short of being a trustworthy advisor regarding matters in which we fallible humans are not omniscient. Such an individual could be described as a false or untrustworthy advisor or commentator.
Would it not be economical to use the word illicit to describe such an individual as a false advisor or commentator?
Would the term illicit not be particularly well suited for describing the pretensions of an individual lacking credible qualifications, yet pretending to be an expert commentator, to be qualified?
Would the term illicit not be particularly well suited for describing the pretensions of an individual who hides his past in a veil of secrecy, contrary to the practice of reputable advisors and commentators, to be trustworthy?
It seems to this observer that there are advisors and commentators who are credible and trustworthy, who publicly disclose their background and credentials, whose pretensions to expertise and knowledge of the subject upon which they comment or advise are well founded, whose qualities as advisors and commentators may justly be described as licit.
Conversely, there are advisors and commentators who are not credible and trustworthy, who do not
publicly disclose their background and credentials, whose pretensions to expertise and knowledge of the subject upon which they comment or advise are not well founded, whose qualities as advisors and commentators may justly be described as illicit.
It's obviously wise to seek out licit advisors and commentators when one desires guidance. In the subject of cultural property law, Dr. Peter Tompa is an extremely competent and well qualified resource.
One could however go badly astray in this observer's opinion, if one were to go looking for guidance in Warsaw. One might find an individual eagerly seeking to be accepted as an expert commentator and advisor whom the general public should trust regarding advice and commentary as to the licitness of portable antiquities. This individual however has not publicly disclosed credible, trustworthy credentials to sustain his pretensions for being publicly accepted as an archaeologist. This individual, according to the above reasoning, is an illicit pretender.
For details, see http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2010/12/unprovenanced-archaeologist.html
posted by Dave Welsh at 1:59 AM
11 Comments:
Hello Dave:
What's obvious about the likes of Paul Barford, the Warsaw-based English Language teacher and others of his ilk, is how they play the 'compassion and grief' game.
For them it's all about showing off to a wider audience that with their anxious, hand-wringing comments, they are declaring themselves as morally and ethically superior - thus hoping to notch-up a few Brownie points with the audience.
It's one-upmanship; more than likely as compensation for failures elsewhere in life.Take looting in Egypt as a prime example. First, they project collectors as the villains of the piece, then wade in self-righteously with remarks that amount to:-
"I/we am more appalled than you are,"
or,
"I/we am sadder that you are," (correct in many cases!!)
or
"I/we show more empathy than you do,"
therefore, I/we are ethically superior to you ('you' being whoever they've singled out for abuse).
One has only to look the level of abuse that's continually heaped on Dr Peter Tompa, yourself, Dick Stout, me, and anyone else who's questioned their theories.
I'm sure that in some of these individuals, other serious issues are at work; issues that require specialist treatment. Social media provides these abusers with a level of protection to say what they say, as they'd not make the same accusations face-to-face with those they abuse; thus demonstrating a high level of cowardice.
Keep at 'em.
Regards
John Howland
UK
John,
There's much in what you say.
You mention the abuse Barford heaps upon various people. Dr. Peter Tompa, for one example, is by any objective standard of assessment a very highly qualified and distinguished attorney, one of the world's leading legal experts on cultural property law.
Mr. Barford, by any objective standard of assessment, was a very undistinguished archaeologist with a brief active career, does not presently practice archaeology in any meaningful way today and has not done so for decades, earns his living primarily as a language teacher and translator, and although in the past he published some good work about archaeology done by others, today his only visible output is his scurrilous and notorious blog, wherein he excels at heaping unjustified abuse upon those who are - considered objectively - very much his betters, notably including Dr. Tompa.
Mr. Barford does not have any real, genuine, verifiable qualifications to be publicly considered an expert worth listening to on the subjects upon which he pontificates so freely in his blog. That, in my opinion, is why he hides behind a veil of secrecy regarding his past, as well as regarding his present personal information.
Regards,
Dave
Hi Dave:
PB's business data is freely available if one knows where to look. His registered business address, even his company's Tax Identification Number is out there. Yet, he makes no objection to being on several directory websites.
However, when I published his business address elsewhere, he accused me of trying to incite violence towards him; forgetting that if anyone wanted to inflict harm all they'd have to do is check any one of many Warsaw websites and business directories. That he prefers to dwell in the shadows as a businessman seems odd.
Then again, I quite understand his reticence; he being a respected English Language teacher and part-time UNESCO translator who is the brains behind and author of what you rightly describe as a "scurrilous and notorious blog." Indeed, he demonstrates his considerable English language skills in describing some of his archaeological colleagues as 'limp-wristed' (homosexual) and 'jobsworths' (humble functionaries).
I'm unsure whether it's appropriate that UNESCO should employ anyone espousing such homophobic views and general backbiting. Presumably they concur with him?
Best
John Howland
UK
John,
I'm not sure whether Barford does espouse homophobic views. So far as UNESCO disapproving of his blog, I believe it will snow in Hell before they do any such thing, for his stance on collecting unprovenanced antiquities is very much in line with UNESCO's aggressive efforts to restrict and strangle the international antiquities trade.
Regards,
Dave
Hi Dave:
Semper fidelis?
The UNESCO website proudly puffs the biography of its Director-General, Irina Georgieva Bokova including her service in the pay of Bulgarian Communism in that she; "…joined the United Nations Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria in 1977," all at the time when Todor Zhivkov and his secret police ruled Bulgaria’s communist roost with an iron fist. Dissent, as everywhere else in the Communist Shangri-La, was harshly dealt with. Bokova remained a Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) member until 1990; the same year the BCP was re-branded as the Bulgarian Socialist Party.
The brutal regime (of which Bokova and UNESCO are evidently unashamed) sentenced to death 478 Bulgarians as ‘public enemies’ between 1952 and 1985. Its secret police hunted and killed Bulgarian dissidents both at home and abroad. As well as committing extensive human rights violations, the country’s Turkish minority suffered from measures close to ethnic cleansing.
In 1978, the Bulgarian secret police sent one of its assassins to London to murder - using a ricin-tipped umbrella – the émigré dissident writer and journalist Georgi Markov, who exposed the realities of life under Communism in his book, 'The Truth that Killed'; an exposé that doubtless cost him his life. According to KGB defector Oleg Kalugin (a former KGB general) Markov’s murder was at the behest of Bokova’s then boss, Todor Zhivkov.
Her appointment as UNESCO’s Director-General was not without opposition. In fawning and toadying terms, Paul Barford (one of private collecting's more monotonous and crass critics) leapt unsurprisingly to her defence saying she was a nice lady. By strange co-incidence, Barford coyly admits that in 1986 he was a minion in Poland’s (then communist) Ministry of Culture. He still lives in Poland where he runs English language courses and does part-time translation work.
In contrast to his crooning adoration of UNESCO, he not only insults and abuses highly respected numismatists and private collectors on a near-daily basis, but also pours scorn and cant on those of his own archaeological colleagues who object to his scurrilous wacky dogma by resorting to ad hominem insults, referring to them as; ‘limp-wristed’ and ‘jobsworths.’
If ‘jobsworths’ do exist in the archaeological community as he reckons, then perhaps they are infinitely more preferable - I suggest - to those who actively support, or who have supported, regimes where Human Rights, freedom of expression, property ownership, and democracy, were alien concepts.
Regards
John Howland
UK
John,
I believe it is of interest to inquire into the present character of Irina Georgieva Bokova not only regarding her providing convenient and congenial translating employment to Paul Barford, but also because she is prominently mentioned as a candidate to become the next UN Secretary General.
The 1990 transmutation of the Bulgarian Communist Party into the Bulgarian Socialist Party could have been a genuine remake of the party into a democratic Socialist political organization without authoritarian or dictatorial intentions. On the other hand, it could have been a simple "re-branding" without intentions of changing anything beyond what was clearly incompatible with a free society. Is the Bulgarian Socialist Party really Communism made over to appear as Socialism? I don't know the answer to that, and would like to explore this so as to learn the truth.
It seems to me that if Irina Georgieva Bokova is today still really a Communist in almost everything but name, it could reasonably be said that UNESCO's providing congenial and convenient translating employment to Paul Barford, in an amount sufficient to sustain him, is making it possible for him to carry on his scurrilous and notorious blog, which slavishly follows the actively hostile attitude UNESCO has toward the international antiquities trade.
It seems to me that if Irina Georgieva Bokova is today still really a Communist in almost everything but name, it could reasonably be said that Paul Barford's UNESCO employment may actually amount to, in almost everything but name, his still being the minion of Communism that he indisputably was prior to the collapse of the Polish Communist Government, ca. 1990.
It seems to me that in such circumstances, it would be very clear why Paul Barford would be unwilling to publish a curriculum vitae, or to disclose details of his actual present employment and contractual business relationships with UNESCO and other long term clients.
Regards,
Dave
Hi Dave:
Whether UNESCO is financing Barford’s scurrilous blog is one thing and needs tackling, but he has ruled himself out of any meaningful discussions meandering as he does between fact and fiction. For example:-
The Barford blog; Saturday, 13 August 2016:-
He quotes someone called Farmer Brown warning other landowners to beware of metal detecting rallies:-
“Last Sunday a bloke offered me £500 to allow a detecting rally in my top field! I asked him what he thought they might find. “Nothing probably” he said, “we’re only interested in history – but if any treasure comes up you’ll get half”. Talk like that should trigger alarm bells for any farmer. The truth is that 99.95% of the saleable artefacts they find aren’t treasure items so I was being offered only 0.025% of what they found and they were going to keep 99.975%. In MY bloody field!”
Readers might be amused to know that ‘Farmer Brown’, is nothing more than a fictional character created in association with the UK-based, Nigel Swift, a Barford devotee and close friend. Unable to offer facts they resort to making them up! Another of their combined fictions is the Artefact Erosion Counter; now widely derided and discredited for its sheer absurdity.
Because of their penchant for fairy tales, Barford and Swift are known colloquially as the ‘Brothers Grim’.
On Wednesday, 17 August 2016, Barford announces in a thinly disguised attack on Wayne G Sayles and John Hooker, “It's what they call "independent research" where the adjective seems to denote that the author is free to blithely make unfounded assertions with no attempt to back them up.” Ho! Ho!
Commenting further, Barford remains in the illusory, “….I'm English, not given to Hollywood wet-eye-gratitude. But yes the motivation of those engaged in all the mud-slinging from collectors, dealers and their supporters is quite clear to everyone. They do not want an adult discussion of the issues.“
That we in the real world support ‘adult discussion’ is without dispute (as is currently happening), but only with people who really matter in the scheme of things and who conduct themselves as such – and never with those who peddle fiction as fact while posing as something they are not (more make-believe).
Best
John Howland
UK
Oh no, who would have believed it? Farmer Brown a literary device employed to make a point? Oh the shame of being deceived by a mere literary device. Well, its a good job we have bright sparks like Mr Howland to put the record straight otherwise nobody else would have guessed!! Ha!! Of course it goes back a long way in Mr Swift's family, one of his more scoundrelous forebears is believed even to have made up a whole series of places like Lilliput to make a social point. Of course he was seen through at once and nobody bought his books, quite forgotten he is nowadays.
Paul,
One of your better comments. I didn't know that Nigel Swift was related to the author of Gulliver's Travels.
Dave
Sorry for the sarcasm, but I think most people with half a brain realised that "Farmer Brown" was a pseudonym. The giveaway is the address of his "farm" if you look.
But isn't it interesting that in ALL the years "Farmer Brown" has been pointing out the shortcomings of the manner in which UK metal detectorists 'gain title' to the objects they dig up and then sell, there has been not a single comment from the three milieus involved (a) metal detectorists, (b) the portable antiquities scheme and (c) dealers. UK law enforcement last month refused point blank to discuss it with us. But never mind, who cares what they think, if all goes as planned Farmer Brown will soon be writing direct to the landowners who are being CHEATED by metal detectorists in a farming magazine or two. What the PAS does not do, others can.
Mr Howland can pour as much ridicule on the idea as he likes, the point is the land and all that is in it have a owner and as Farmer Brown points out the way most artefact hunters relieve them of it is neither in full accord with the law, nor "best practice" (and the recommendations of the recent Nighthawking Report to the government). Let's see if we can change that to give buyers more protection from illicit (yes) goods.
Paul,
You have raised a point which I think is well worth discussing on some forum. However, this is getting pretty far afield from the subject of the blog post to which comments are now being made.
Thinking that over, I believe it's time to close comments on this post and move on to other pursuits.
Paul and John, please do not submit any further comments to this post.
Post a Comment
<< Home