.
PAS has outshone itself. Google searching for the text "Britain: An Amateur Treasure-Seeker's Paradise" (with inverted commas) produces 179 links and texts hosted on sites like Yahoo, MSN, various Reuters offshoots, India Times, coiney newsfeeds, metal detecting webpages, and I even spotted a link apparently on an 'UK Erotica & Sex News' page.
Meanwhile searching for any text at all on the topic of "Britain: Archaeological preservation" (with inverted commas) produced eleven. So about the ratio you'd expect then. Shiny Stuff Sets the Agenda.
I expect metal detecting holiday bookings will be up this summer.
Disgraceful. This is supposed to be "archaeological outreach"? This is the kind of damaging "outreach" the discipline can well do without. What went wrong? What are these people thinking?
Showing posts with label public outreach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public outreach. Show all posts
Radicals in our Midst
*
I too was shocked by the three questions in the SAFE poll, the reaction was predictable. To reiterate: Question: “Should market countries stop buying antiquities from Egypt until order is restored?” there are three possible answers: No/ Yes/ Yes. Antiquities trade should stop, period. I voted for the second. Interestingly the 106 responses so far are fairly evenly spread. New York coin dealer Alfredo De La Fe sees something sinister in the third question ('Need proof that the radical archaeology movement wants to end the antiquities market?')
I would say the collectors are caught up in their own rhetoric. I personally would say that those who voted "yes, stop the entire antiquities trade, period" (if they mean it as such) are indeed somewhat radical in their outlook. The problem is that in antiquity-collector-speak a "radical" is anyone at all who looks askance at the current form of the global antiquities trade and would like to see it clean up its act. That is not (should not be) tantamount to saying it should be stopped. As should be clear from this blog, I am among the group that want to see it being done in a more open (less secretive) manner and with full transparency about where the individual items involved have actually come from (as full as possible documented provenance and collecting history). I want to see caring collectors acting responsibly and with full awareness of the consequences of handling material in the manner in which is currently the case. That may be idealistic, but it certainly is not "radical". That's the way we trade meat and used cars. By using the umbrella term "radical" however dealers like De La Fe wish to persuade the onlooker that any calls for restraint and transparency within the antiquities market are in some way tainted by radicalism, and he has his "proof" that among the group he labels as a whole "radicals" there are indeed some that express a radical view. But there are also those with more moderate views, I'd draw his attention to the fact that twice as many voters so far express support for a more limited approach.
But what is the problem? A group of people have expressed the opinion on a web-based forum that the "antiquities trade as a whole should be stopped, period". That's free speech for you, people have alternative views. These people however are entitled to have these views, express them, and the rest of us have the right to agree or disagree with them and debate the issues. There are two ways to deal with the problem, Mr De La Fe can call on all his collector mates to vote "no" in their thousands as if it was a CPAC "public consultation" to try and drown out the voice of those they disagree with (which is just another way of ignoring the problem and pretending it has gone away - a common antiquitist tactic). OR they can address the issue, find out why some people think this and address their issues with the current form of the trade in dugup antiquities. That of course they do not want to do, and in fact appear - for one reason or another - wholly incapable of doing.
I too was shocked by the three questions in the SAFE poll, the reaction was predictable. To reiterate: Question: “Should market countries stop buying antiquities from Egypt until order is restored?” there are three possible answers: No/ Yes/ Yes. Antiquities trade should stop, period. I voted for the second. Interestingly the 106 responses so far are fairly evenly spread. New York coin dealer Alfredo De La Fe sees something sinister in the third question ('Need proof that the radical archaeology movement wants to end the antiquities market?')
Quite often you hear from apologists and members [of] the radical archaeology movement that they do not want to bring an end to the antiquities trade, they just want a “licit” market that is properly regulated. My argument has been that this is nothing but a lie so that they do not appear to be taking an extreme position. Want proof?I do not know whether the creator of the poll really had in mind when formulating this question. Whether it means the whole trade in Egyptian antiquities or other ones too. Whether they had in mind the whole antiquities market, or just the no-questions-asked bit where freshly looted stuff snuggles down among the decontextualised stuff the origins of which nobody cares to enquire about. Or did they really did mean every single documentable Grand Tour and turn of the twentieth century tourist trophy antiquity still in private hands. Neither do I know who are the forty-odd members of the public who so far have voted for this option, or what they think the question means. What I think it does show is that there is a certain degree of public disquiet about the way the antiquities market handles the issues of the sales of archaeological material, and the damaging lack of transparency.
I would say the collectors are caught up in their own rhetoric. I personally would say that those who voted "yes, stop the entire antiquities trade, period" (if they mean it as such) are indeed somewhat radical in their outlook. The problem is that in antiquity-collector-speak a "radical" is anyone at all who looks askance at the current form of the global antiquities trade and would like to see it clean up its act. That is not (should not be) tantamount to saying it should be stopped. As should be clear from this blog, I am among the group that want to see it being done in a more open (less secretive) manner and with full transparency about where the individual items involved have actually come from (as full as possible documented provenance and collecting history). I want to see caring collectors acting responsibly and with full awareness of the consequences of handling material in the manner in which is currently the case. That may be idealistic, but it certainly is not "radical". That's the way we trade meat and used cars. By using the umbrella term "radical" however dealers like De La Fe wish to persuade the onlooker that any calls for restraint and transparency within the antiquities market are in some way tainted by radicalism, and he has his "proof" that among the group he labels as a whole "radicals" there are indeed some that express a radical view. But there are also those with more moderate views, I'd draw his attention to the fact that twice as many voters so far express support for a more limited approach.
But what is the problem? A group of people have expressed the opinion on a web-based forum that the "antiquities trade as a whole should be stopped, period". That's free speech for you, people have alternative views. These people however are entitled to have these views, express them, and the rest of us have the right to agree or disagree with them and debate the issues. There are two ways to deal with the problem, Mr De La Fe can call on all his collector mates to vote "no" in their thousands as if it was a CPAC "public consultation" to try and drown out the voice of those they disagree with (which is just another way of ignoring the problem and pretending it has gone away - a common antiquitist tactic). OR they can address the issue, find out why some people think this and address their issues with the current form of the trade in dugup antiquities. That of course they do not want to do, and in fact appear - for one reason or another - wholly incapable of doing.
"Things You Can't Take Back"
*
Welcome to Meg a student of anthropology and history at Bennington College who has just started up a blog "Things You Can't Take Back" ("The illicit antiquities trade and other cultural heritage issues. By a mouthy youth. For the mouthy youth"). We look forward to seeing her take on the issues, and wish her lots of readers.I liked the suggestions in '10 Easy Ways To Be Involved In Cultural Heritage Activism'
Metal Detecting Vacations (UK)
*
Metal Detecting Vacations (UK) ("come and discover a piece of England" [and take it away with you after paying me lots of cash]) is run by an American immigrant called Tony Golden, now based in Sale. He has been in England five years and sees a business opportunity exploiting the country's lax heritage laws. So how would that look if Mexicans moved in to the US to dig up and export all the remains of America's past?If that was not bad enough, one of the things his punters are paying for is for Metal Detecting Vacations (UK) to take them along to the PAS to legitimise the activity. But what are they told to do? After having spent a week or so being driven around to various sites in Cheshire (my emphasis):
After the detecting tour has ended you are required to place all your finds identified over 50 years old in a finds bag with the finders details clearly marked upon it.That is the name of the finder, not the precise findspots of each of the objects in the bag. It is worth pointing out that if the organizers manage one 'tour' a month (Aug to April) this one firm supplies perhaps 40-80 people to boost PAS "number of people involved" statistics. Of course then it looks as if PAS is doing far more outreach to the 10 000 indigenous metal detectorists than it is. A more significant point is what worth is the record of those mixed finds to anyone? But actually providing information to mitigate the commercial destruction is NOT the idea, look what Mr Golden then promises:
MDV (UK) will then work with (sic) the local find liaison officer in recording the finds. If any of the artefact's (sic) are found to be of historical importance they will be recorded by the portable antiquities scheme where experts will ID and record the item giving you a greater depth of information.Who pays for that? The punters have paid Mr Golden for this service, but the PAS do this for free. Well, not really for free is it? This is done from public funds. The British public are paying archaeologists to provide nice reports for the clients of firms like Mr Golden's commercial operation engaged in the digging up and export of bits of Britain's archaeological record for cash. We've come a long way from the PAS being involved in instilling best practice (this kind of exploitation of the archaeological record is not by any stretch of the imagination "best practice") and we've come a long way from the notion that by working with artefact hunters there is some kind of engagement with the past of people who are investigating the history of the area they live in. The FLOs do not even meet Mr Golden's clients, just see a jumbled bag of their finds and produce reports for them free of charge. Do the PAS support organizations such as Metal Detecting Vacations (UK)? Should they not be making this clear? Is this what the PAS consider "responsible detecting" (ie responsible use of the finite archaeological record)? Should the PAS not be making a charge for their services when they are exploited by commercial organizations like this? Should not British archaeologists be doing more to try and stop this kind of thing?
A Deep Bloomsburian silence will ensue I am in no doubt. But I hope the purse string holders will hear the echo of this silence and wonder just what is going on. PAS is supposed to be doing outreach, isn't it? How can it do that by remaining silent?
[The hyperlinks on Mr Golden's website do not seem to work very well, but perseverance will get you to the important bits - like how much it earns him per client]
Markus Spreads the Word
.
Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues is currently a "featured blog" on Markus Millington's ArchNews web portal. ("It's proving to be very popular", I am told). It used to be featured on the CBA website (I only found out about it by accident, nobody had actually asked if they could) but I think I criticised them once too often for not doing something-or-other and they stopped, or perhaps the metal-detectorists complained. There is something called the Maia Atlantis Ancient World Blogs which also re-publishes posts from this blog among other bits and pieces (I really can't see why to be honest as I am not really discussing "the ancient world" as such).
Anyway, it is nice to know the word is being spread, all the better to get more and more people questioning the tenets behind the type of collecting and trade which is criticised here.
Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues is currently a "featured blog" on Markus Millington's ArchNews web portal. ("It's proving to be very popular", I am told). It used to be featured on the CBA website (I only found out about it by accident, nobody had actually asked if they could) but I think I criticised them once too often for not doing something-or-other and they stopped, or perhaps the metal-detectorists complained. There is something called the Maia Atlantis Ancient World Blogs which also re-publishes posts from this blog among other bits and pieces (I really can't see why to be honest as I am not really discussing "the ancient world" as such).
Anyway, it is nice to know the word is being spread, all the better to get more and more people questioning the tenets behind the type of collecting and trade which is criticised here.
A YouTube Video About Artefact Hunting
.
Candice Jarman, among other things, reckons that...
Artefact hunting with metal detectors is an erosive form of exploitation of the archaeological record which is the common heritage of everybody, not just individuals who want to take bits of it away for private entertainment and profit. It therefore follows that everybody should be fully informed about this type of artefact hunting, who does it, how and why, and more to the point what its actual effects (both positive and negative) on the archaeological record are. To what degree are we informed about that? The metal detecting forums are for the most part closed access, members-only, so one has to register first with them before being able to see what goes on behind their closed doors. What have they got to hide? (Please register with one and see). There are books and promotional videos as well. I'd like to look at one of the latter here, Steve Timewell's Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (2008) which is currently available on YouTube. This purports to cover all the issues. Quite significant however are the parts of the issues surrounding the exploitation of archaeological sites as a source of collectables for private entertainment and profit which they do not cover, can you spot them?
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 1), Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 2),
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 3) what you can expect to find... [Paul Murawski] 6:39 - "Collection of interesting and valuable finds".
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 4) at 0:25 "95% of metal detecting is based on this kind of item" (sic) - but they are still artefacts aren't they? What is not collectable still may be used as archaeological evidence if we know where it came from and in what relationships with other material, but in most cases this "95%" never gets seen by the PAS FLO. Most of it gets chucked away well before that stage. Then a boring bit on beach detecting - "some people make a living out of it".
I think it is worth noting what Norfolk Wolf lets slip in this segment (at 4:20):
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 5) Accessories... then (6:43) "legal responsibilities". (8:35, "there's also a code of conduct to protect the reputation of the hobby" - sic!) - NB this is the NCMD and FID codes ! The key point discussed (9:27) is "filling in the holes" (!)
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 6)
0:20 hobby "really rewarding financially"... but then mostly glib PAS fluff. Yuk. This continues on:
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 7) Note that what Trevor Austin says about sites found by artefact hunting and collecting through detector use will NOT be protected from further exploitation appears under the heading (0:29 of the previous part) "it is vital that our heritage is protected..."
Then the obligatory disclaimer, (1:06): "you do get the odd nighthawker [...] these are not detectorists; these are just crooks, they're out for the money and they give the detecting fraternity a bad name. I've got no time for them whatsoever" (it is a good job, isn't it that a certain page with anecdotes about his own beginnings in artefact hunting has gone from Norfolk Wolf's now-defunct website). Then there is "joining a club" and (6:50) Commercial artefact hunting rallies ("on prime sites" - 7:06). [Norman Smith commercial rally organizer who makes no money for hisself from this you understand ... 9:01].
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 8) [2:30 - 4:52 Dave Evans about recording on commercial artefact hunting rallies].
Storing and cleaning finds: (6:05) "it won't be long before you are finding all manner of things and some of them could be of considerable value".
(6:12) "You can have your own museum display in your own home". Note that what is shown is Lincoln Museum's cases, not a well-displayed and curated private collection, could they not find one to film? Also I note that they did not add "you could donate the most important of your finds to the museum".
Worth having a look at and a think about, ignore the tiresome muzak and repetitive use of the same settings and shots.
Candice Jarman, among other things, reckons that... Mr Barford's response shows just how little this self-proclaimed 'expert' (but in reality total ignoramus) knows about metal detecting.Although I have spent a fair amount of time for several decades trying to understand the various aspects of this hobby and those who do it, there is of course a great deal I would still like to learn straight from their own words.
Artefact hunting with metal detectors is an erosive form of exploitation of the archaeological record which is the common heritage of everybody, not just individuals who want to take bits of it away for private entertainment and profit. It therefore follows that everybody should be fully informed about this type of artefact hunting, who does it, how and why, and more to the point what its actual effects (both positive and negative) on the archaeological record are. To what degree are we informed about that? The metal detecting forums are for the most part closed access, members-only, so one has to register first with them before being able to see what goes on behind their closed doors. What have they got to hide? (Please register with one and see). There are books and promotional videos as well. I'd like to look at one of the latter here, Steve Timewell's Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (2008) which is currently available on YouTube. This purports to cover all the issues. Quite significant however are the parts of the issues surrounding the exploitation of archaeological sites as a source of collectables for private entertainment and profit which they do not cover, can you spot them?
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 1), Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 2),
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 3) what you can expect to find... [Paul Murawski] 6:39 - "Collection of interesting and valuable finds".
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 4) at 0:25 "95% of metal detecting is based on this kind of item" (sic) - but they are still artefacts aren't they? What is not collectable still may be used as archaeological evidence if we know where it came from and in what relationships with other material, but in most cases this "95%" never gets seen by the PAS FLO. Most of it gets chucked away well before that stage. Then a boring bit on beach detecting - "some people make a living out of it".
I think it is worth noting what Norfolk Wolf lets slip in this segment (at 4:20):
"When I get on the field I'm looking for ... well I'l be hearing nails, oi'm looking fer pottery, I'm looking for oystershells, this is a sure sign of habitation. Once you've found this po'ery and the naily areas, then you can go to town,Let us consider whether Norfolk Wolf (John Lynne) has a huge collection of ancient nails to rival that which the excavation of that site would produce? Does he have boxes and boxes of pottery and oystershells systematically collected and catalogued from these sites, or did he just cherry pick the archaeological finds, keeping just the most collectable non-ferrous artefacts? There is a very clear difference between what can be recorded about a site from what a collector takes from it when looking for geegaws to add to a collection, and what an archaeologist gathers as part of the investigative process. This is a fundamental reason why the data recorded as a result of artefact hunting can in no way be treated as archaeological data and severely restricts their use for archaeological (and many other) purposes.
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 5) Accessories... then (6:43) "legal responsibilities". (8:35, "there's also a code of conduct to protect the reputation of the hobby" - sic!) - NB this is the NCMD and FID codes ! The key point discussed (9:27) is "filling in the holes" (!)
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 6)
0:20 hobby "really rewarding financially"... but then mostly glib PAS fluff. Yuk. This continues on:
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 7) Note that what Trevor Austin says about sites found by artefact hunting and collecting through detector use will NOT be protected from further exploitation appears under the heading (0:29 of the previous part) "it is vital that our heritage is protected..."
Then the obligatory disclaimer, (1:06): "you do get the odd nighthawker [...] these are not detectorists; these are just crooks, they're out for the money and they give the detecting fraternity a bad name. I've got no time for them whatsoever" (it is a good job, isn't it that a certain page with anecdotes about his own beginnings in artefact hunting has gone from Norfolk Wolf's now-defunct website). Then there is "joining a club" and (6:50) Commercial artefact hunting rallies ("on prime sites" - 7:06). [Norman Smith commercial rally organizer who makes no money for hisself from this you understand ... 9:01].
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 8) [2:30 - 4:52 Dave Evans about recording on commercial artefact hunting rallies].
Storing and cleaning finds: (6:05) "it won't be long before you are finding all manner of things and some of them could be of considerable value".
(6:12) "You can have your own museum display in your own home". Note that what is shown is Lincoln Museum's cases, not a well-displayed and curated private collection, could they not find one to film? Also I note that they did not add "you could donate the most important of your finds to the museum".
Worth having a look at and a think about, ignore the tiresome muzak and repetitive use of the same settings and shots.
PAS has Set Targets?
.
In his reply to David Gill's paper, Trevor Austin of the National Council of Metal Detectorists asserts that there is a reason why more finds are not being reported by the PAS, despite the high values of the "guestimate[s] of yearly detector finds promoted by some protagonists". Apparently the total number of such finds would in any case "be impossible for the PAS to ever record" as mitigation for the information loss. According to Austin, "to blame detectorists for under recording is totally without foundation as the resources of the PAS are simply too few: accordingly at this funding level it can only ever achieve a token figure". Austin seems to lose sight of the fact that to carry on causing erosion of the archaeological record knowing that there is no possibility of mitigating that damage by recording is hardly what one would term "best practice" or responsible behaviour. Austin says however that information loss is not the fault of the metal detectorist, but the fault of the PAS, or rather the MLA, for according to Austin,
The latest of a series of figures for annual recording numbers to emerge from the PAS reveals an interesting contrast to what Austin asserts:
Basically there is not a lot of evidence from this that the PAS has been reaching that alleged upper limit of the annual number of records, only in 2010 is there more than Austin's figure of 55000 records coming onto the PAS database (this was achieved by incorporating a pre-existing database compiled by somebody else). Even if we take Austin's words literally and look at the number of individual objects represented by those records, we see that only from 2006 onwards the alleged upper limit set by the paymasters of the PAS has been exceeded, in 2007 and 2010 quite considerably. In the years before 2006 however the alleged upper limit set by the MLA paymasters cannot explain the smaller numbers of both records and finds entering the PAS database from the collecting activities of 10 000 metal detectorists over a period of thirteen years.
If the PAS was receiving enough artefacts to keep it working to a 55000 objects/year capacity, it would have reached its 400 000th record within seven and a half years and not thirteen.
This is just another of those self-justificatory deceits put out by collectors isn't it? It's yet another attempt to shift the blame from the artefact collector (portrayed as a victim here) to the archaeological establishment. We've seen this so many times before with the ACCG, British metal detectorists are no better. Austin's texts like the detecting forums are full of this "it's not are fault" nonsense. I suggest if collectors (and that goes for metal detectorists as well) want to be seen as responsible, they should take responsibility for the way they conduct their hobby and take responsibility for the effects of what they do, and not constantly attempt to show that it is the 'other side' that is responsible for what can only be seen as their failures.
Nobody MAKES them go metal detecting. What is asked of them though is that they do so in a manner which is sustainable and as non-damaging as possible, and where even minimal erosion of the archaeological resource is mitigated by proper and detailed recording. The reason why the PAS is not getting more records in its database is that (though it busts a gut to get them), the truth is not all detectorists are showing all their finds. But then the "number of objects in the database" is not the most important characteristic of PAS outreach. Austin's text shows clearly just how much of a failure those other aspects have been and are likely to ever be too.
I bet neither Trevor Austin nor any of the metal detectorists he represents (so that's ten thousand of you) can post up here in the comments a single reference to a document in the public domain which confirms the existence of an official '55 000 objects a year' fixed limit to PAS annual activity set by the MLA, beyond which the PAS is not permitted to extend.
.
In his reply to David Gill's paper, Trevor Austin of the National Council of Metal Detectorists asserts that there is a reason why more finds are not being reported by the PAS, despite the high values of the "guestimate[s] of yearly detector finds promoted by some protagonists". Apparently the total number of such finds would in any case "be impossible for the PAS to ever record" as mitigation for the information loss. According to Austin, "to blame detectorists for under recording is totally without foundation as the resources of the PAS are simply too few: accordingly at this funding level it can only ever achieve a token figure". Austin seems to lose sight of the fact that to carry on causing erosion of the archaeological record knowing that there is no possibility of mitigating that damage by recording is hardly what one would term "best practice" or responsible behaviour. Austin says however that information loss is not the fault of the metal detectorist, but the fault of the PAS, or rather the MLA, for according to Austin,
Under its current funding masters, the Museums Libraries and Archives Council, the PAS has a set target of 55,000 items recorded per year.I am not clear whether he means "artefacts" or "records". Let us assume he means the latter (recording the findspot details of a bag of twenty Roman sherds, or a pot of Roman coins on the database takes little longer than the handling time required to do the same for a single find). What that figure represents is 25 objects recorded a week (five a day then) by each FLO [not counting attendance at rallies] and each one costing the taxpayer 23 quid.
The latest of a series of figures for annual recording numbers to emerge from the PAS reveals an interesting contrast to what Austin asserts:
| Records | Finds recorded | Year of recording |
|---|---|---|
| 3476 | 4588 | 1998 |
| 6128 | 8201 | 1999 |
| 11323 | 18106 | 2000 |
| 11481 | 16368 | 2001 |
| 8164 | 11996 | 2002 |
| 14657 | 21684 | 2003 |
| 26383 | 39000 | 2004 |
| 33919 | 52202 | 2005 |
| 37502 | 58311 | 2006 |
| 49308 | 79052 | 2007 |
| 37455 | 56449 | 2008 |
| 39981 | 66481 | 2009 |
| 112893 | 190091 | 2010 |
If the PAS was receiving enough artefacts to keep it working to a 55000 objects/year capacity, it would have reached its 400 000th record within seven and a half years and not thirteen.
This is just another of those self-justificatory deceits put out by collectors isn't it? It's yet another attempt to shift the blame from the artefact collector (portrayed as a victim here) to the archaeological establishment. We've seen this so many times before with the ACCG, British metal detectorists are no better. Austin's texts like the detecting forums are full of this "it's not are fault" nonsense. I suggest if collectors (and that goes for metal detectorists as well) want to be seen as responsible, they should take responsibility for the way they conduct their hobby and take responsibility for the effects of what they do, and not constantly attempt to show that it is the 'other side' that is responsible for what can only be seen as their failures.
Nobody MAKES them go metal detecting. What is asked of them though is that they do so in a manner which is sustainable and as non-damaging as possible, and where even minimal erosion of the archaeological resource is mitigated by proper and detailed recording. The reason why the PAS is not getting more records in its database is that (though it busts a gut to get them), the truth is not all detectorists are showing all their finds. But then the "number of objects in the database" is not the most important characteristic of PAS outreach. Austin's text shows clearly just how much of a failure those other aspects have been and are likely to ever be too.
I bet neither Trevor Austin nor any of the metal detectorists he represents (so that's ten thousand of you) can post up here in the comments a single reference to a document in the public domain which confirms the existence of an official '55 000 objects a year' fixed limit to PAS annual activity set by the MLA, beyond which the PAS is not permitted to extend.
.
Gill on PAS as Preservation (3): Barford responds
.
One of the respondents to David Gill was archaeoblogger Paul Barford who overran the word limit with his long-winded response to the topics raised ('Archaeology, Collectors and Preservation: a Reply to David Gill'). Anyone who has read what this bloke has said elsewhere will recognise that there is not much there which he has not already said many times.
It is' however, worth drawing attention to the fact that although Barford is often labelled "anti-PAS" by his opponents (and the PAS refuse to talk to him !), his text actually contains a call to strengthen PAS by incorporating it into legislation with a permanent place in the heritage preservation system and a permanent budget, which would strengthen its position immensely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)