Comments for The Assemblage

Comment on The BNP and bogus prehistory by Will

Will — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:51:36 +0000

Hi, thanks and I liked your post,though the link above is faulty – http://outlandish-knight.blogspot.com/2009/10/archaeology-and-bnp.html

It’s interesting that the BNP’s line on ‘indigenous Brits .. since time immemorial’ claims a scientific basis. I think the way to counteract racist nonsense such as this is to undermine the whole emphasis on race rather than engage with it as this can end up with confused accounts and it gives unfounded propositions legitimacy.

Comment on The BNP and bogus prehistory by Outlandish Knight

Outlandish Knight — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:46:20 +0000

Hmmm….this is something I’ve blogged about too (http://outlandish-knight.blogspot.com/2009/10/archaeology-and-bnp.html). It is particularly interesting to see the BNP using the work of Stephen Oppenheimer

Comment on The BNP and bogus prehistory by Will

Will — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:24:36 +0000

of course indigenous means ‘white’ when the BNP uses it. But it’s not just the far right and fascists that are using the term – for example neo-pagan groups, and crofters in Scotland. This use of the word and concept indigenous is a point worth discussing, not just pedantic point scoring.

Comment on The BNP and bogus prehistory by Tom F

Tom F — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:41:14 +0000

Surely the important thing about the use of the word indigenous is that it means what the person using it understands it to mean.
What is the point of engaging in long winded discussions in order to show that you are better educated or informed than the person using the term. Pedantic point scoring .I know what a BNP supporter means when he or she uses the word and that`s all that really matters. Perhaps you could find time to reply when you have finished checking your local shop window signs for errant punctuation.
Let`s show shop assistants and stupid BNP people what superior brains are for.

Comment on Cultural baggage by will

will — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:24:38 +0000

Here’s an article about top level Iraqi politicians smuggling antiquities out of that country, paraphrased by Lamia al-Gailani Werr from the following news item:

http://www.albasrah.net/ar_articles_2009/1009/thrib_121009.htm

Nouri Kamil al-Maliki the Brother in Law on the Prime Minister of Iraq
Dr al-Maliki has been detained at Dhubai airport, he was caught with
Sumerian antiquities trying to smuggle them to the United States. Also
detained with him, his bodyguard Abu Ali al-Asfahani, who is also a
relative of the Prime Minister.

A number of Iraqi officials including the former ambassador to Qatar
Mr Sadiq al-Rikabi, Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh and Dr. Muwafaq al-Ruba’i are
negotiating with the Director of the Dubai airport Mansour bin Ali
al-’Utaibi to release them.

Mr Asfahani who was caught with four passports: American, Syrian,
Iranian and Iraqi, lives in the Green Zone in Baghdad and has been
nicknamed by the people as Mr. Yaseen in reference to Arshad Yaseen
the brother in law of Saddam who was notorious for his antique
dealings.

Comment on Diamond miners find shipwreck by Mark

Mark — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:03:07 +0000

Quiet a find! And the perfect place for secure evacation!

Comment on Boxes of gold by Erik van Rossenberg

Erik van Rossenberg — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:56:32 +0000

In this respect, there are also ‘good’ and ‘bad’ archaeologists.

Comment on Boxes of gold by Will

Will — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:29:34 +0000

Please don’t get me wrong, I think it is a fantastic discovery and it doesn’t matter who found it.

I agree that co-operation and consensus is a good thing, but we are not all on the same side.

As you say, there is a generally accepted standard of good (responsible) practice by metal detector users. The question should be whether this practice is good in the first place. There might indeed be lots of nice ‘items’, but almost all of these are made of metal and only represent a fraction of archaeological evidence. The wilful focus on saleable antiquities means other forms of artefact and context are ignored.

Comment on Boxes of gold by APR

APR — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:32:37 +0000

I get the distinct feeling that there are those who would rather these gold artefacts hadn’t been found. Or should I say, would rather they hadn’t been found by a detectorist.

The PAS has worked hard over the last thirteen years, to try and break down the barriers between archaeologists and detectorists. Something that was covered in the recent PAS conference at the British Museum, which I attended. Where metal detecting was discussed by academics from across Europe.
I agree that detectorists don’t get it right every time, but most make the effort to recover items in a responsible fashion.
Although once an artefact has been found, unless 24hr security can be arranged, it can’t be left in situ.

The PAS has recorded over 140,000 items, most found by detectorists, which otherwise would probably still be in the ground.
I think they must be doing something right.

We are all on the same side.

Comment on Boxes of gold by Erik van Rossenberg

Erik van Rossenberg — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:09:59 +0000

You probably suspected that I also have a problem with the closed-find connotation of the concept of “hoard”. One hoard can contain many.