JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  August 2008

BRITARCH August 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Fw: [Moneta-L] Archaeology's Limits [was Government intrusion and theft]

From:

Paul Barford <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:50:12 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (146 lines)

The message below is reposted from the Yahoo Moneta-L list with the author's 
permission. I'd be interested in what other archaeologists actually think 
about these accusations and proposals.

The author (a dealer in ancient coins http://www.classicalcoins.com ) is not 
a member of this list and you might like to forward a copy of any reply to 
him as well as the list.  He says "Nothing would please me more than an 
incisive yet reasoned discussion of
this topic."


1) Is archaeological scholarship "limited and utterly inadequate"?
2) Are archaeologists demanding "exclusive control" of artefacts?
3) Is most of "mankind's cultural heritage" locked away TO ROT in neglected 
storerooms where it is of no practical value to anyone ?
4) Would selling off to collectors "millions of surplus antiquities in 
public and institutional custody" be the answer to archaeology's problems? 
Or is this argument just a smokescreen? And so on.

What do people think?

Thanks
Paul Barford





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Welsh" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "'Paul Barford'" <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "CoinCom" <[log in to unmask]>; "[log in to unmask] com" 
<[log in to unmask]>; "[log in to unmask] Com" 
<[log in to unmask]>; "'Unidroit-L'" 
<[log in to unmask]>; "'Ancientartifacts'" 
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 9:18 AM
Subject: [Moneta-L] Archaeology's Limits [was Government intrusion and 
theft]


Paul Barford's arguments regrettably ignore the key issue of the presently 
limited and utterly inadequate output of archaeological scholarship.

While I have no intention of denigrating the impressive professional 
achievements of individual archaeologists, there have never been enough of 
them to do anything remotely resembling full justice to all that was created
by the past. That is an essential flaw in the demands for exclusive control 
of artifacts presently made by anticollecting archaeologists: they are so 
few in numbers that no matter how good they may be individually, as a group 
they can't handle the task - nor do they seem to have any sort of practical 
plan for effectively dealing with this problem. Barford's arguments instead 
appear to be solely based upon unproven theoretical ideology, rather than
practical and constructive thinking about intelligently allocating and 
sharing mankind's cultural heritage. Locking most of it away to rot in 
neglected storerooms where it is of no practical value to anyone certainly 
is not a viable or rational approach - but what else does Barford have to
offer?

If archaeologists took a rational approach, and recognized that gaining 
effective influence over antiquities  dispositions was worth making 
reasonable concessions to practical realities, they would realize that the 
millions of surplus antiquities in public and institutional custody could
pay for all the additional time and extra help required to assemble the 
resources to really do it right. By agreeing to allow ethical private 
collectors a fair chance to constructively share in the custody and study of 
antiquities, they could get everything they really want (including 
resources to bring looting under control) and also a host of enthusiastic 
supporters.

That however ultimately depends upon whether archaeologists are sensible 
enough to place appropriate value on sharing resources with amateur 
antiquarian studies. Thus far, their compulsive possessiveness for control 
of source material suggests that we are still very far from the necessary 
commitment to intelligent cooperation and sharing. Such self-interested and 
often career-driven possessiveness actually seems far worse than the false
caricature of miserly collectors that anticollecting advocates tend to 
portray to the public.

Perhaps if archaeologists, instead of complaining about and criticizing 
collectors, would instead give them a chance to show what they could 
contribute with the constructive leadership archaeology could provide, 
Barford might have a different opinion about their potential contributions
to scholarship. In the acience of numismatics, nine tenths of the important 
attribution references have been compiled by private collectors and coin 
dealers.

Dave Welsh
Unidroit-L Listowner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L
[log in to unmask]

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Paul Barford
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:36 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [Moneta-L] Re: Government intrusion and theft
>
>
> "ewcabcxyz" reckons:
>> Paul Barford seemed to take it for granted that
>> scholarship is the province of the professionals. <
> What actually, in what I actually WROTE, is the basis for this assertion?
>
> There is a lot of amateur scholarship in archaeology (as there is in many
> things, palaeontology, conchology, postal history and a whole load of 
> other
> "ologies"). What I think though is that such scholarship cannot be used as
> the excuse for willful destruction of potential evidence about the past or
> ignoring cultural property protection laws.
>
> Anyhow, there are (Wayne Sayles extimated) 50 000 collectors of ancient
> coins in the USA. If each of them buys just ten coins a year, over a 
> decade
> that is 5 000 000 largely contextless ancient coins coming from 
> "somewhere"
> and going into those collections in one country alone. Now how many
> monographs, how many scholarly (actually scholarly) articles specifically
> about ancient coins written by amateur collectors in peer reviewed 
> scholarly
>
> journals has this resulted in over that same decade? It would be useful to
> 'the cause' if the ACCG (or some other body representing ancient coin
> collectors) could produce a bibliography to show the nature and extent of
> the advances that have been made by these collectors.
>
> Joseph on Whidbey Island Washington writes:
>> My view of the UN in general is not at all politically
>> correct. Case in point would be their collective view on
>> the private ownership of ancient coins <
> Could you reiterate where you found this? I can only find references to
> concerns over clandestinely excavated and illicitly exported ancient 
> coins.
> Is this what you are talking about? I don't think it is the "ownership" 
> that
>
> is the problem, but where they came from. These are two separate issues.
>
> Paul Barford
>
>
>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager