Sanctuary
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 10, 2010, 11:34
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Just to clarify, when I said he “thumbed his nose at us by failing to call in archaeos to do the excavation and just ripped it all out like an Iraqui looter” I was thinking of Iraqui site looters not museum ones. As a matter of fact I think what he did was actually worse than “morally equivalent to stealing from museums” as Jamie put it, as stealing from museums is merely artefact theft whereas this is also knowledge theft.
I also think the comparison with Iraqui site looters was pretty accurate in moral terms. Apart from the fact it's legal here and illegal there how is the process different? Digging up national heritage for yourself and flogging it to the highest bidder? The only differences I can think of is that he got oodles and they get peanuts and they are driven by grinding poverty whereas he was on Jobseekers allowance!
As the guy is not here to defend himself these accusations are all one-sided and should stop!
|
nigelswift
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 10, 2010, 11:45
|
|
I've made no accusations.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 10, 2010, 11:56
|
|
nigelswift wrote: I've made no accusations.
Well here are two for a start!
'...and just ripped it all out like an Iraqui looter'.
He may have done it very carefully. Unless you were there you have no idea other than what you read in tomorrow's chip paper!
'As a matter of fact I think what he did was actually worse than “morally equivalent to stealing from museums” as Jamie put it, as stealing from museums is merely artefact theft whereas this is also knowledge theft.
He had permission to do what he was doing and was breaking no laws so how did it become theft? Could you explain that in court if asked?
|
Resonox
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 10, 2010, 12:24
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: nigelswift wrote: I've made no accusations.
Well here are two for a start!
'...and just ripped it all out like an Iraqui looter'.
He may have done it very carefully. Unless you were there you have no idea other than what you read in tomorrow's chip paper!
'As a matter of fact I think what he did was actually worse than “morally equivalent to stealing from museums” as Jamie put it, as stealing from museums is merely artefact theft whereas this is also knowledge theft.
He had permission to do what he was doing and was breaking no laws so how did it become theft? Could you explain that in court if asked?
There is no point anyone saying that because someone has got his mortgage paid off by selling something he dug up and MIGHT never have been seen otherwise is OK...because the item is now sold off and sitting in some private collection where it WILL never be seen again, and MIGHT never be available for historic examination...so we are as much in the dark about this object as we were before it came to light and was carefully reconstructed by parties unknown.
Knowledge theft is caused by the fact we are now aware of an object's existence...but know nothing at all about it's history because that opportunity has been stolen from all of us!
|
nigelswift
|
Edited Oct 10, 2010, 13:26
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 10, 2010, 12:24
|
"He may have done it very carefully. Unless you were there you have no idea"
Every detectorist and archaeologist has condemned him for failing to call in the professionals, as required of responsible detectorists. Amateur excavations even careful ones involve destroying massive amounts of knowledge.
Are you in favour of amateurs doing professional work, for profit? Would you like me to remove your appendix? I'll be very careful.
“morally equivalent to stealing from museums” as Jamie put it, as stealing from museums is merely artefact theft whereas this is also knowledge theft.
"He had permission to do what he was doing and was breaking no laws so how did it become theft? Could you explain that in court if asked?"
I certainly could. He took that which morally should be ours and prevented the museum getting it and he took knowledge which should be ours and wantonly and deliberately destroyed it. That's moral theft on two counts and I shall plead "fair comment in the public interest".
Any more "one sided accusations" that you want me to stop or are those in fact the only two you have?
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 10, 2010, 12:41
|
|
nigelswift wrote: "He may have done it very carefully. Unless you were there you have no idea"
Every detectorist and archaeologist has condemned him for failing to call in the professionals, as required of responsible detectorists. Amateur excavations even careful ones involve destroying massive amounts of knowledge.
Are you in favour of amateurs doing professional work, for profit? Would you like me to remove your appendix? I'll be very careful.
“morally equivalent to stealing from museums” as Jamie put it, as stealing from museums is merely artefact theft whereas this is also knowledge theft.
"He had permission to do what he was doing and was breaking no laws so how did it become theft? Could you explain that in court if asked?"
I certainly could. He took that which morally should be ours and prevented the museum getting it and he took knowledge which should be ours and wantonly and deliberately destroyed it. That's moral theft on two counts and I shall plead "fair comment in the public interest".
Any more "one sided accusations" that you want me to stop or are those in fact the only two you have?
Both cop-out and I won't be looking for others. Courts don't deal in morals just hard fact...he wasn't doing anything wrong in the eyes of the law so it would be thrown out! Strictly speaking he did us a favour by finding it as it was unlikely to be otherwise.
And I repeat, you weren't there to see him 'ripping it out of the ground'. You have to prove these things Nigel not assume.
I'm done on this and you're getting wound up again so let's just agree to disagree shall we.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 10, 2010, 12:55
|
|
Knowledge theft is caused by the fact we are now aware of an object's existence...but know nothing at all about it's history because that opportunity has been stolen from all of us!
That's it in a nutshell.
Though if I could also add that not only has the object been stolen from us, it's also possible that it's been irretrievably damaged through inappropriate restoration.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 10, 2010, 13:10
|
Strictly speaking he did us a favour by finding it as it was unlikely to be otherwise.
Actually old flower that betrays a complete misunderstanding of archaeology, conservation and the archaeological resource, a misunderstanding that you share with metal detectorists.
1. Archaeology is NOT artefactology, it is artefacts in context. Society is NOT being done a favour by digging up the latter while destroying the former.
2. The modern approach to archaeology (for the past many decades) is to recognise it is a destructive process to a finite resource and therefore to undertake it sparingly, as carefully as possible, harvesting as much knowledge as possible, mostly in advance of inevitable destruction.
3. Deliberate, amateur, random grabbing for fun or profit is the antithesis of the careful principles developed to conserve the resource and collectively called Archaeology. The helmet was fine where it was for another few centuries. We have no reason to take 11 million other items out of their context either. Other countries don't. We're a laughing stock.
No, I'm not getting wound up. I'm merely surprised to hear you using the excuses made by metal detectorists for their own ignorant selfishness, that's all.
(In fact, worse: all the detectorists think this bloke acted appallingly. So there's only you and him think he didn't do anything wrong!)
|
Resonox
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 10, 2010, 13:19
|
|
nigelswift wrote: In fact, worse: all the detectorists think this bloke acted appallingly. So there's only you and him think he didn't do anything wrong! Still no word about the mysterious restorers in this saga....so as no known agents did the work(NOT Christies...NOT EH...NOT anyone who knows the requirements and legislation for the restoration of artefacts...NOT anyone it seems)...the work simply must have been carried out contrary to legality(legalspeak for "against the law")..so it is looking more and more like some underhand dealings have been going on and perhaps a law HAS been broken after all....wonder if the appropriate authorities are investigating??
|
nigelswift
|
Re: £2.3m for a Roman helmet
Oct 10, 2010, 13:32
|
Can't think what law was broken. We're British don't forget. He could have melted it down perfectly legally.
Here's what the Head of PAS said:
"Sally Worrell stressed to the finder the importance of knowing the precise findspot which the finder is initially reluctant to give. She also asked the finder to allow the local museum to acquire it, but the finder declined stating that the landowner wished to sell it at auction. Sally and Ralph Jackson, Curator of Romano-British collections at the British Museum, who subsequently examined the helmet at Christie’s and wrote a report on it which is published at http://www.finds.org.uk/news/stories/article/id/195, both asked Christie's not to restore it, but they declined.
On 30 Aug., after lengthy telephone conversations with Sally, the finder showed Dot Boughton and Stuart Noon, joint Finds Liaison Officers for Cumbria and Lancashire, the findspot in Crosby Garrett. There is still evidence for the hole dug in the ground and the FLOs observe that the field contains traces of earthworks (which of course cannot be dated).
"Look, there's the 'ole" (three months later, with all the summer growth on it).
That's the sum total of ALL this bloke has done for the community!
8>(
|
